It's as if leftists do not actually like Putin or any of the other ghouls on the Russian side, but are instead critical of NATO and willing to consider NATO opponents as rational actors instead of cartoon villains.
Russia is a country run by cartoon villains. Can you not picture Shoigu sneaking up behind someone with a large round bomb that says ACME on it, only to discover that the fuse has been accidentally lit by a soldiers cigarette?
I think most people of the left or right can see the situation for what it is. However Russia is obviously crafting messages to appeal to those on the extremes. When you see people on the hard left screeching about Ukrainian Nazis or advancing absurd peace deals then they've been gotten at. When you see people from the hard right screeching about Ukrainian immigrants or the cost of the war vs America / Europe first then you know they've been gotten at.
As for Prigozhin, I think most people, even Russians are glad that he is dead but for different reasons. Seems clear that Putin murdered him for his disloyalty but nobody in Ukraine is going to mourn his loss for the spent force that is Wagner.
People think Ukraine has a Nazi problem because western media was shouting about it from the rooftops for a decade before the invasion. Then they only whispered it if they mentioned it at all but they kept on posting pictures of Ukrainian soldiers with Nazi insignia plastered on their faces or their equipment. Or photos of politicians with a portrait of Bandera on the wall above their desk. The gullible liberal journalists didn't even know what they had to censor out at the start of the war.
Unlike libs, the 'hard' left didn't start looking at Ukraine on the date of the invasion and they didn't wipe their memories clean of the historical context. A conspiracy involving Russian propagandists isn't needed to explain this.
Neither are Russian propagandists needed to explain that racist westerners are going to be racist against immigrants and refugees, wherever they're from.
Ukraine has had a far right problem but lots of countries do. Doesn't mean it's more than the fringe as it is in other countries and it's CERTAINLY not a credible talking point or justification for war to invade a sovereign democracy. And the stupid part is that this shit still goes onto today, even to this comment where you attempt to justify it.
The collective west does have a Nazi problem, it's acute in Ukraine.
Ukraine has been getting shelled for over 8 years now, it's been the Ukrainian government doing it, and that specifically has been what provoked the invasion.
It's just observable reality, idk what's so hard about remembering events from a few years ago for liberals
Svoboda having one seat in the Rada kind of acute?
As far as general patriotism is concerned sure that's on an all-time high in Ukraine but guess what, that kind of stuff happens if you get invaded. Which started in 2014, don't forget that, and Ukraine has been under hybrid attack from Russia since at least 2000, the 90s being only a brief respite from centuries of colonialism and that only because Russia didn't know WTF it was doing.
The important part is the type of nationalism you see. And that's much closer to the likes of the SNP than to Nazis.
"general patriotism" I see swastikas, things that sub in for swastikas, iron crosses, and totenkopfs.
You can fuck right off with the "centuries of colonialism" that's literlly the west repackaging its own history to accuse others of.
I thought you guys were the ones who said that portions of a country can unilaterally vote to leave and its okay. That was what you lot pulled with Serbia, why does it suddenly no longer apply here?
So the Bundeswehr is a Nazi org because it's using the iron cross as emblem?
You can fuck right off with the “centuries of colonialism” that’s literlly the west repackaging its own history to accuse others of.
So Russia suddenly isn't European? That would come as news to Europe.
That was what you lot pulled with Serbia, why does it suddenly no longer apply here?
I was a bit too young to have much of an opinion or impact there. In any case very much unlike Ukraine, Serbia actually was genociding people. "Get genocided by your central state, get independence" is more than fair if you ask me.
I was a bit too young to have much of an opinion or impact there. In any case very much unlike Ukraine, Serbia actually was genociding people. "Get genocided by your central state, get independence" is more than fair if you ask me.
The Ukrainian state has been killing civilians indiscriminately in its two breakaway regions, they were just doing it for much longer than it took for any kind of intervention in Serbia.
When the west starts to pretend to care about muslims, you know they're full of shit about any purported genocides. They went from pretending to care about Kosovar Albanians to murdering millions of muslims over the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
So the Bundeswehr is a Nazi org because it's using the iron cross as emblem?
It's pretty funny having iron crosses constantly showing up on all the UA vehicles- I think we all know what they're going for, they just left off a few lines.
So Russia suddenly isn't European? That would come as news to Europe.
Russia has not been a part of 'the west', certainly not as far as most of the EU is concerned unless you're trying to be intentionally obtuse
Russia has not been a part of ‘the west’, certainly not as far as most of the EU is concerned unless you’re trying to be intentionally obtuse
It has been a colonial empire for quite a while now. Or do you really think this didn't happen with military force? That it's just the natural extent of the Russian nation? Or that the Empire didn't brutally exploit every new territory they conquered? "Colony" doesn't mean "overseas".
Every single larger, or affluent, European country engaged in colonialism.
It’s pretty funny having iron crosses constantly showing up on all the UA vehicles
Were the Russians also doing chattel slavery like the west was for literally hundreds of years? Like sure conditions for serfs weren't great, but the transatlantic slave trade, the mass genocide of the americas, the subjugation of africa, india and china built the wealth of europe. You're trying to act like these two things are the same and they're not
Отъебись ватник блядь.
lmao
seriously though:
The Ukrainian state has been killing civilians indiscriminately in its two breakaway regions
Where's the lie? You guys think that's a good thing. Link to more info
They were abhorrent. You're really playing semantics here, conditions were essentially slave-like just as, say, Cuba under Batista.
built the wealth of europe
No. Water power did, Europe has an absurd number of suitable streams for grain mills which allowed the creation of extensive trade, merchant, and scholar classes -- as they could be fed. Which led to technological superiority which led to the capacity to roll over other nations (and the presumption that it was the right thing to do). Without that pre-existing wealth all that colonising would not have been possible.
Where’s the lie? You guys think that’s a good thing.
You're accusing me of condoning or advocating genocide?
You're accusing me of condoning or advocating genocide?
You already told me to fuck off for pointing out that parts of Ukraine have been getting shelled by its own government for over 8 years, considering that response, yes that was my conclusion.
People were calling for them to intervene immediately after the coup in 2014 and they didn't. Doesn't mean that wasn't still the reason for the intervention years later.
A special electoral operation. Yanukovich reneged on election promises, people didn't like that and protested, he tried to turn Ukraine into a dictatorship, people liked that even less and protested even more, NATO sent... politicians, to negotiate compromises, protesters wanted to hear nothing about that, Yanukovich fled to his masters in Russia, got removed from office because AWOL, brief interim government, promptly followed by new elections which is how those kinds of iffy situations get solved in democracies.
You used the OSCE as a source previously, pray tell me what does the OSCE say about the following elections?
Noone gives a fuck whether the IMF gets what it wants or not. Not even the IMF in that case they simply don't give out money.
Also, the loan condition was about stopping to subsidise gas to be sold to consumers at below market price. Not sell off Anatonov or something.
Also the people have spoken. Pray tell, again, did you have a look at what the OSCE said about those elections? Seems to me like the Ukrainian electorate thought that the whole EU and not going bankrupt thing was worth paying realistic utility bills.
Noone gives a fuck whether the IMF gets what it wants or not. Not even the IMF in that case they simply don't give out money.
weird how when they don't get what they want there always seems to be some sort of intervention, financial or military against the offending party. Clearly there is no cause and effect that can ever be associated in the liberal mind.
, did you have a look at what the OSCE said about those elections?
The election took place in the context of ongoing armed conflict and other hostilities in the east of the country and the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation. As a consequence, the election could not be organized in Crimea and certain parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are controlled by illegal armed groups.
Weird, so almost like there was an active war going on the whole time and the elections only reflected the most western-aligned people. Again, cause and effect are literally impossible to connect in the liberal mind.
weird how when they don’t get what they want there always seems to be some sort of intervention, financial or military against the offending party.
Care to back that up with data? How does e.g. Argentine keep getting away with things?
Weird, so almost like there was an active war going on
And whose fault is that? Who prevented that people in occupied regions participated in the elections?
the whole time and the elections only reflected the most western-aligned people.
That's a very, very wrong take on the Ukrainian electorate. Both politically and I suppose geographically/ethically as the "people's republics" didn't at all cover Russian-speaking regions.
Argentina, the largest debtor with the IMF after years of economic crisis, has seen locals lose faith in their currency as inflation hit triple-digits and almost four-in-10 people are below the poverty line.
They're already in debt hand getting pressured to do austerity, what do you even think is going on in the world?
Weird, so almost like there was an active war going on
And whose fault is that? Who prevented that people in occupied regions participated in the elections?
I think the fault lies with the people who ignored any attempts at negotiation (minsk 1 and 2 peace agreements, and went on ramping up for a proxy war anyways)
There was a coup -> there is an active warzone in part of the country -> elections happen (so free and fair) -> The post coup elected government continues shelling the people living in the east anyways -> intervention happens
minsk 1 and 2 peace agreements,
Both broken by Russia(n backed forces). And exactly those forces also made sure that people can't vote.
Pretty sure the ceasefire violations were a 'both sides' thing, but for most of this fighting one side (Ukraine) has has a distinct advantage in terms of weaponry, considering the irregular forces.
The west was using those peace agreements to build up forces, Merkel literally admitted that on camera.
No. Water power did, Europe has an absurd number of suitable streams for grain mills allowing less the creation of extensive trade, merchant, and scholar classes. Which led to technological superiority which led to the capacity to roll over other nations (and the presumption that it was the right thing to do). Without that pre-existing wealth all that colonising would not have been possible.
...for centuries if not millennia at quite low ROI and then Europeans came along with fancy ships and the capacity to conquer more fertile places earning quite a bit more dough per slave.
As said: The primary cause of Europe's wealth is early technological development, at scale, and in breadth, enabled because lots of food could be produced with comparatively small workforce.
Yes, the europeans showed up to profit-maximize the slavery process. That was the technological innovation, the boats helped, but the main part of the equation was translating huge amounts of human suffering into money, and then re-investing it. You're hyping up Europeans technology up a little too much, chauvinists tend to. Europe was a plague-ridden backwater for centuries before they opted to sacrifice endless humans to Moloch. They "invented" all sorts of science to tell themselves it was the 'natural order'.
Based on how you're responding you do think this is a good thing though and are giving it positive spin.
Yes, and that's why I point out that it's silly to say 'these are both colonial empires' when one has had two major changes in government since then, and affected far fewer people. Unless you're trying to be essentialist about Russians as colonizers or something it makes no sense.
Have you ever talked to, say, an Estonian? Muscovy colonised, the Russian Empire colonised, the USSR colonised, the Russian federation... tries to colonise.
Also you're the only one talking about the US, here. IDGAF categorise them as lizard people for all I care.
Also you're the only one talking about the US, here.
They're the other major party in the proxy war? The EU is a junior partner at this point.
There's plenty of examples of horrific British, French Spanish colonization, the Dutch are responsible for inventing the triangle trade of slaves to the Americas (with the profits going to Europe, hence triangle) in the first place. Some of those have actually had governments change since then too.
The US gets brought up because it's the global hegemon, driving so much of these political tensions. You don't get to pretend its blood-soaked record doesn't exist lmao.
A proxy war? Who is using Russia as a proxy? Words have meanings, you know. This is a war of conquest, and a very direct one at that. You can tell by how the aggressor has already legally (as in "Russian law", not "international law") incorporated parts of the defendant's territory into itself.
Also there's exactly two reasons why the US is in this: a) glee at Russia willingly running into another Afghanistan and b) because Europe is. The US can't countenance the impression that Europe does military things without it but if Trump were to be elected tomorrow and turned the country to isolationism European support for Ukraine would stand fast.
Words have meanings, you know. This is a war of conquest, and a very direct one at that.
lmao, one sentence later. There's already plenty of precedent for unilateral secession, the EU made it clear it was okay with that when it was Serbia, why are you raising a stink now?
why the US is in this: a) glee at Russia willingly running into another Afghanistan and b) because Europe is.
sounds like a proxy war to me, and if the US pulled out they would not have any ammunition, it's only viable because of US support right now.
There’s already plenty of precedent for unilateral secession, the EU made it clear it was okay with that when it was Serbia, why are you raising a stink now?
Kosovo's secession wasn't unilateral, it was NATO-backed. Also, it followed a genocide I think I already told you that can't be arsed to go back and have a look at which hexbear I educated on that particular topic.
sounds like a proxy war to me, and if the US pulled out they would not have any ammunition,
The US has stocks but they don't have production capacity. Well, at least not nearly enough.
Kosovo's secession wasn't unilateral, it was NATO-backed. Also, it followed a genocide I think I already told you that can't be arsed to go back and have a look at which hexbear I educated on that particular topic.
It was not including voting from the rest of the country of Serbia, that's what unilateral means jfc. Also the west only 'cares' about muslim life when it's time to use them as an pretext for intervention they wanted to do anyways, same with how they suddenly care about uyghers now.
There were documented examples of Romani having to pretend to be kosovar albanians to flee the NATO bombing because there was no resources made available for any other minority ethnic group.
The whole NATO backed dismantling of yugoslavia was criminal
The US has stocks but they don't have production capacity. Well, at least not nearly enough.
Yes I know, that's why they should stop getting Ukranians killed and pull all support.
They were abhorrent. You're really playing semantics here, conditions were essentially slave-like just as, say, Cuba under Batista.
Yes it was bad, still not as bad as chattel slavery, but pretty bad, that's why it was completely deserved when they had a revolution. Not sure why you keep bringing up the colonization of siberia like it's relevant to what's going on now though. Comparing the amount of human life lost in that to the conquest of Americas though is just silly- there's no comparison and the same American government is still around since then!
They have had several government changes since then. The US has the same constitution since it was doing its shit, the one with slavery in it. (they only do it to prisoners now though, don't ask too many questions about why they have the highest prison population in the world)
Calling them a 'colonial empire' especially from the seat of the worlds largest and most brutal historical colonial empires is laughable. (1/3 of Africa has had a monetary policy run out of Paris to this day, I wonder why they're kicking them out)
Do you realize how sociopathic this sounds? Are all separatists deserving of being bombed by the country they live under? Would you say the same to the people of Yemen, or Palestine or Ethiopia? “You’re being bombed, so just leave”?
Would you say the same to the people of Yemen, or Palestine or Ethiopia?
Depressingly for many libs the answer is yes because guy with blue tie was president and responsible for bombing them. Guy in red tie too but that's less relevant. Kosovo and Syria are better examples.
But it's okay for neighbors to pull their neighbors into IMF debt servitude, to say nothing of couping the government because it wasn't pro-west enough. Really letting the euro chauvinism fly there.
What would happen to you if you started a tv show where you publicly talk about the crimes of your government? It might come as a shock but there are plenty of countries where you can do this without falling out of your window
Sure that's one good example (although it's always a bit more risky if you're starting an armed self defense force). But you might just want to ponder a little bit on why you have to go back 50+ years for it.
I guess you didn't pay attention. Whenever they post pictures of Ukrainian soldiers there's a good chance that you will see a Totenkopf or a Black Sun badge. When western news interviews lesser known Ukrainian politicians, there's a good chance that you will see a Bandera portrait in the background.
The rise of the ukrainian far right has been well documented in western media before the invasion. Hell, google "Western media before February of 2022"
a sovereign democracy[Citation needed]
In fact it's neither sovereign, since the US couped Ukraine in 2014, nor it is a democracy, but an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country. The contrast with Russia lies in the absence of a single pivotal leader like Putin, and they fully adhere to Western interests.
This doesn't make the invasion "good" as in "Aragorn is a good guy". The NATO encroaching makes it understandable. Which is completely different from "good". Understandable means that there is some kind of rationality at play. Which means it was probably preventable. Which means that some kind of solution is to be had. Hopefully...
spoiler
"Then came Russia’s invasion. Within months, many of these same institutions had plunged into an Orwellian stampede to persuade the West that Ukraine’s neo-Nazi regiment was suddenly not a problem.
It wasn’t pretty. In 2018, The Guardian had published an article titled “Neo-Nazi Groups Recruit Britons to Fight in Ukraine,” in which the Azov Regiment was called “a notorious Ukrainian fascist militia.” Indeed, as late as November 2020, The Guardian was calling Azov a “neo-Nazi extremist movement.”
But by February 2023, The Guardian was assuring readers that Azov’s fighters “are now leading the defence of Mariupol, insisting they have shed their previous dubious politics and rapidly becoming Ukrainian heroes.” The campaign believed to have recruited British far-right activists was now a thing of the past.
The BBC had been among the first to warn of Azov, criticizing Kyiv in 2014 for ignoring a group that “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.” A 2018 report noted Azov’s “well-established links to the far right.”
Shortly after Putin’s invasion, though, the BBC began to assert that although “to Russia, they are neo-Nazis and their origins lie in a neo-Nazi group,” the Azov Regiment was being “falsely portrayed as Nazi” by Moscow." link
I see the cognitive dissonance is kicking in for you. Hopefully you will recover, and you'll read western mainstream narratives more critically.
How funny is this bit though?
"The BBC had been among the first to warn of Azov, criticizing Kyiv in 2014 for ignoring a group that “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.” A 2018 report noted Azov’s “well-established links to the far right.”
Shortly after Putin’s invasion, though, the BBC began to assert that although “to Russia, they are neo-Nazis and their origins lie in a neo-Nazi group,” the Azov Regiment was being “falsely portrayed as Nazi” by Moscow."
They suddenly became not-nazis in February 2022? But they kept the wolfsangel? Was BBC spouting Russian misinfo in 2014? Or was it a Russian time travelling double agent who wrote all those articles for prominent western papers about the concerning rise of neonazis in Ukraine? If they are so fringe, why are they giving them so much airtime?
Azov has been getting denazified ever since it became an official battalion. A huge number of Nazis left, regular people joined, are there still Nazis left? Probably, yes, but they're not running around with SS runes on their helmets that shit doesn't fly.
As far as the Wolfangel is concerned: It's not a clear Nazi symbol. Tons of German tows have it on their coat of arms.
Stop trying to rehabilitate the wolfsangel. If your town had it for three centuries then maybe that’s not nazi symbolism. If you join a nationalist right wing regiment and get it tattooed on yourself, that’s Nazi symbolism.
Think about it like the swastika. If someone is choosing it now, in Europe, in a right wing military organization, they’re nazis, not fans of Indian symbols and culture. Do you know how I can tell?
oh no, not germanic cultutre appropriated by the nazis and wideley seen as dogwhistles! how will the world move on?
your'e absolutely right that the wolfsangel is like the number 88. maybe someone with it in a username or email was born or married that year. but when they're joining a nationalist right wing militia the number 88 means they're a nazi
we're not talking about random people on the street with tee shirts that have wolfsangels on em (btw they'd be nazis too). we're talking about people joining a famously right wing, nationalist militia in a country with a long history of nazism. they didn't pick those symbols out because they just love interesting history!
when people choose symbols associated with nazis now they're nazis. i'm sorry, that's just reality.
No, we're not talking about that. You are. All I said about the Wolfsangel is that it's not an unambigiously nazi symbol, which you just agreed to, the rest is you foaming at the mouth.
Yes, Azov at the beginning was a Nazi org, otherwise it would hardly had to have get denazified when getting rolled into official state structures, now would it. What's your fucking problem.
My problem is that we’re not talking about this in a vacuum. We aren’t having a nice little hypothetical conversation about weather or not you can judge the town of burgweldel for having a wolfsangel on their town coat of arms.
We are talking about people joining a right wing nationalist militia using the wolfsangel. In the context of this conversation it is unambiguously a Nazi dogwhistle and indefensible, unless you want to defend Nazis. Do you want to defend Nazis?
We are talking about people joining a right wing nationalist militia using the wolfsangel. In the context of this conversation it is unambiguously a Nazi dogwhistle and indefensible, unless you want to defend Nazis.
Again: Azovs at the beginning was a Nazi org. I never did say anything to the contrary. Yes they absolutely chose it because of its implications.
On the other side of the equation we have plenty of army insignia all over Europe using the Wolfsangel, both historically (pre-Nazi) and contemporarily -- it's a hunting weapon, after all, you shouldn't be more surprised to see it on military insignia than a sword or bow and arrow.
Should Azov have changed their logo? I do think so. But at the same time it's not valid to say "Because they still use the same symbol they're still Nazis".
Those other regiments aren’t on the other side of the equation because there is no equation. We’re not talking about the whole of semiotics throughout the history of europe, we’re talking about a specific nationalist right wing militia that uses Nazi symbols and ideas.
They chose a symbol to dogwhistle to everyone that they’re Nazis. Now they say they’re not Nazis but they kept the symbol that they chose to low key tell everyone me they’re Nazis.
Do you know what that means? it means they’re still nazis
This isn’t hard to understand. Theres no nuance here. They use the nazi markings knowing they’re nazi markings. They’re Nazis.
They chose a symbol to dogwhistle to everyone that they’re Nazis.
Yes.
Now they say they’re not Nazis but they kept the symbol that they chose to low key tell everyone me they’re Nazis.
No. For the simple reason that there's no sufficient personal or ideological continuation of "they". Vast swathes of Nazis left in the process of Azov becoming a regular brigade of the National Guard because they didn't want to be part of a government-controlled organisation out to de-nazify the thing, regular people joined. Also no further foreigners joined, those get sorted into the foreign legion, part of the army. National guard is run by the ministry of interior, not defence ministry.
The powers that be in the ministry of interior decided not to replace the logo. I have no insight as to their reasoning.
Okay, two different theys, the most recent being the ukranian government, whose decision to keep the name and logo you just can’t fathom.
Let me give a little insight into their reasoning: they want to keep the Nazi regiment.
If you bought a Nazi bar that had to close down because of all the Nazis and you wanted to reopen it as a bar, but without all the Nazis, would you keep the old name and leave the logo the same?
No, of course you wouldn’t. You’d change the name, clean house, completely renovate, change the menu, stop serving jagermiester and even take a strong anti fascist line.
Since the ukranian government didn’t do that it’s obvious they want to keep running the Nazi bar on the dl.
They wanted to keep the fighters who were willing to stay and not be Nazis. Changing the name is pointless it's named after the Azov Sea, and cleaning house can be done without changing the emblem, especially as it was only a Wolfsangel and not a Swastika. Had it been a Swastika I'd be 110% on your side but it isn't. As already said: Random people just don't associate the Wolfsangel with Nazis, you pretty much need to be a Nazi or Antifa to recognise it.
And since when is Jägermeister a Nazi drink. What's next, Berentzen Saurer Apfel?
The original azov wolfsangel insignia was a Nazi dogwhistle (you agreed with this!), but a little churn and a change of management and the exact same name and insignia are somehow fine?
By people not considering the name and symbol tarnished enough to change? By not considering the symbol more important than the actual lived political practice (or rather lack thereof) in the regiment?
If the new management doesn’t consider at the very least the symbol chosen to appeal to Nazis tarnished enough to change when they take control of the Nazi militia then the new management are Nazis too.
If it was chosen to appeal to Nazis then by not changing it they’re choosing to continue appealing to Nazis!
Yet simultaneously they cracked down on Nazis. Sounds like a contradiction, doesn't it? That's because you're putting more meaning into the symbol than others.
Or, differently put: Why don't you stop arguing symbols and research how Azov troops think in 2023.
And it's a Nazi banner because... they're Nazis because they have a Nazi banner?
And no you don't have to actually talk to them. Plenty of information out there. If you want armed right-wingers to worry about in Ukraine then that'd be Right Sector.
If Nazis advertise with free pudding does that make all pudding eaters Nazis?
this isn’t tough stuff. stop defending nazis.
You're trying very hard to hold up a connection which is tenable at best. Also, stop fucking insulting people as Nazis for disagreeing with you. Have I expressed anything but disagreement with Nazis here, anywhere? I haven't for my whole fucking life. Touch grass.
I never called anyone disagreeing with me a Nazi. It’s worth noting though that a moderator of this very website called you a Nazi as their reason for removing your post equating the swastika and the unexpounded upon Germanic culture the Nazis appropriated.
Azov marches under a Nazi banner. We both know it’s a Nazi banner because we agreed it was chosen to dogwhistle to nazis. If someone marches under a Nazi banner, would you say they’re a Nazi? If not, what if they march under a Nazi banner for a state that banned all communist parties?
You're saying I'm defending them. To me that is no different than calling me one, which is a direct and severe insult. I mean I'm German I'm used to foreigners (especially Americans) throwing the term around with abandon, thereby trivialising it so I'm not really taking it personally but that still doesn't make it right for you to do. Or Antifa praxis: You're blunting a weapon.
It’s worth noting though that a moderator of this very website called you a Nazi as their reason for removing your post equating the swastika and the unexpounded upon Germanic culture the Nazis appropriated.
Which website? I see nothing being removed here on my end. I also didn't equate the Swastika to anything, the thing I did was contrast the Wolfsangel to the Swastika. Explained why they're different.
Oh, just noticed, back to the actual Azov insignia: This is the original thing. When Azov became National Gurad it was replaced with this one. Notice what's missing? The pretty much only symbol that is 150% unambiguously Nazi, as in invented by them, not appropriated, not used elsewhere: The black sun. I was also incorrect previously, the Wolfsangel isn't Svoboda's Wolfsangel any more, the design differs.
Azov is nazis.
You still haven't given an argument for that but "they use a symbol that also the Nazis used". They also eat bread, that's also a thing the Nazis did. To accuse someone of being a Nazi is an allegation which needs a bit more care than semiotic first impressions.
People can also wear Lonsdale without being Nazis. Even showing the "nsda" with an unzippered jacket. Shit tends to be complicated.
If you can actually provide a solid argument that Azov is Nazis I'll change my mind immediately.
you can’t display their banner in your home country because it’s a nazi symbol.
I could, because it's not a Nazi symbol. It would be illegal to use the specific style used by the 2nd SS tank division as that is (as the rest of the SS) an organisation which got declared unconstitutional.
In a nutshell: The Wolfsangel is only forbidden if you're using it specifically to refer to a forbidden organisation. Unlike with other more recognisable symbols it's not immediately assumed that any use of them refers to such organisations. Which would be a problem as it's used in coat of arms, in forestry, whatever.
Which brings me to the next thing:
okay, here’s a solid argument:
...no, it wasn't. If you want to go the way of German laws then tell me why the Azov regiment should be declared unconstitutional, then their symbol would be outlawed. Not the other way round.
You know what is illegal? Running around with a Z flag: Condoning of crimes, to wit, waging war of aggression.
Did you hear that guys? It’s cool, the Nazi militia is totally fine now because they changed the font of their wolfsangel and rotated it 90 degrees. Yeah, that makes them not Nazis. I know! It sounds weird but those are the rules, you can be an out Nazi organization but if you switch to comic sans and throw a little word art action in the mix you’re good.
You're still insisting that the current Azov is a bunch of Nazis and therefore the wolfsangel needs to be interpreted as a hate symbol and not neutral heraldry. However, you also base them being Nazis on them using the wolfsangel, unwilling (or unable) to bring up actual evidence of actual Nazi shit in today's Azov.
As I said in the comment that started this whole thread: Azov got denazified by the state. They went in, removed the black sun (hence why it's very much relevant), they cracked down on Nazi political expression in the regiment, and even before that tons of Nazis left because they didn't want to be part of a state organisation that would denazify them.
How can you ignore all that? And why that pin-point focus on Azov? There's other cases such as the unit now known as the 67th Mechanised, formerly right sector. They also kept the symbols of the Ukraine Volunteer Corps. (Though sword to knife and Kalashnikovs to some other assault rifle. Much better graphic design overall).
You already agreed that the Wolfsangel is not a Nazi symbol as such. If it needs to be avoided because Nazis used it, then the blade-and-rifle stuff also needs to be avoided. Tons of stuff needs to be avoided.
Lastly, another question: Do you have a moral issue with Nazis dying at the front.
I never agreed that the wolfsangel isn’t a Nazi symbol,I conceded that in some very rare circumstances it isn’t used that way and followed it immediately with the qualification that we aren’t talking about those circumstances.
The circumstances we are talking about are pretty much the textbook example of it being used as a Nazi dogwhistle. You acknowledged this. This isn’t one of the times where you can claim it’s like finding the wolfsangel in the crest of an old forester family. Simply bringing that up in this context is literally defending Nazis and I’d like you to stop doing that.
If a Nazi organization uses a symbol (any symbol) as a Nazi dogwhistle, and the government comes in, claims to have cleaned house but keeps the name and that symbol, do you not think that raises some red flags? Does it not make you consider the distinct possibility that they’re not doing a thorough job and just slapping a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon?
I’m not gonna pat the ukranian government on the back for removing the black sun, I’m gonna recognize the fact that they did that instead of completely removing all iconography associated with the Nazi regiment, dissolving it, investigating all people involved thoroughly and moving the men and material into other units or forming a new regiment with strict oversight and discipline and a command structure that’s entirely comprised of army personnel.
Because that’s how you “denazify” without incarcerating or killing the Nazis. Really, it’s how you integrate units that aren’t compatible with your force into yourself. The fact that the ukranian government thought it was enough to change the logo but keep the name and the wolfsangel communicates to anyone watching that they don’t see the Nazi regiment as incompatible with themselves, and they just want people in it to keep their heads down.
If you can stop defending Nazis for a second we can have a laugh at how the 67ths patch shows the profile of consumer grade donated ar-15 rifles with magpul flip up sights and everything. At least the volunteer corps is the iconography of irregulars (the rifles that were already around). When people try to blame everything on nato it’s important to remember that there are whole units whose existence is predicated on corporate sponsorship. Shits fucking grim.
This isn’t one of the times where you can claim it’s like finding the wolfsangel in the crest of an old forester family.
Just for the record: It's not just some ancient thing you might find somewhere. It's in active use in German heraldry, family crests, insignia of hunter organisations, etc. It's a (by now outlawed because cruel) weapon to hunt wolves and foxes. Literally means "wolf rod", "rod" here in the sense of fishing rod, one side of it would be hung up in a tree, while the part with barbs was equipped with a lure. Have a picture of a reconstruction (just the steel, not the gruesome details).
Semiotically I'd say it's connected to protection, feistiness, because wolves scary monsters and shit (which really isn't the case but that's another can of worms). But consider your run of the mill peasant seeing that thing in a noble crest or such and saying "yep they're keeping us safe".
Every German one, two, and five cent coin has oak leaves on it. Same for the D-Mark. Germany is the successor state of Nazi Germany. The SS used oak leaves in insignia. Is the Bundesbank a Nazi organisation? Germany as a whole?
If a Nazi organization uses a symbol (any symbol) as a Nazi dogwhistle, and the government comes in, claims to have cleaned house but keeps the name and that symbol, do you not think that raises some red flags? Does it not make you consider the distinct possibility that they’re not doing a thorough job and just slapping a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon?
I have no reason to believe they weren't thorough. Have you? Aside from assuming they weren't thorough by not getting rid of the Wolfsangel. These kinds of insignia aren't just changed will-nilly, there were a significant number of non-Nazis already in Azov who might've liked it, it is not considered to be a Nazi symbol in public Ukrainian perception (though it's not a common heraldic theme, either, it's simply "some fancy shape"). They did get rid of the black sun, that one is plain and simply indefensible.
dissolving it [...] moving the men and material into other units or forming a new regiment
Ukraine is at war. By pulling regiments apart and reconstituting them you severely fuck with their fighting efficiency: Effective operations require trust in your comrades, requires knowing your comrades, how they will react in what situation, it requires prolonged periods of joint training.
In peace times, sure, that'd be the right thing to do. But Ukraine doesn't have that luxury. Azov has been fighting Russian invaders since 2014, without pause. For quite a while it was the only regiment really fighting because the Ukrainian army was in complete shambles thanks to hybrid Russian warfare fucking with it. You don't just dissolve your most experienced force while they're keeping the enemy from running you over.
and a command structure that’s entirely comprised of army personnel.
...it's not an army unit, but paramilitary police.
The biggest indicator for me, really, of the denazification working is swathes of Nazis simply packing their stuff and leaving. Why the fuck would they have done that if they had buddies in the interior ministry "only removing the black sun but turning a blind eye to the rest"?
I’m just gonna get it out of the way up front: equating oak leaves and a symbol with, once again, its own ADL entry and many pictures of Nazis using it in tattoos, emblems and patches is absurd and can only be interpreted as providing cover and defense for nazis. Stop defending nazis.
I do have reason to believe they’re just throwing a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon: they’re at war and they want command and control of the Nazi regiment!
You said it yourself, they didn’t do the right thing because they want the Nazis fighting for them.
They didn’t denazify anything and we can both look and see by the symbols and name they used!
equating oak leaves and a symbol with, once again, its own ADL entry
I keep bringing up those examples because you don't seem to get the point that the thing is not a Swastika. But let me come up with another example, and as the ADL is not really the best source here let's take the actual authority on the matter, the Bundesverfassungsschutz. Page 26, section 2.13, the Freiheitliche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, featuring its abbreviation "FAP" (sic) inside a cogwheel.
Does that mean that users of the Rust programming logo are now Nazis because letter in cogwheel?
And I can already anticipate the objection: The Rust community didn't start out as a Nazi org. But then on the flipside Azov got denazified. If Rust did start out as a Nazi org, would we have to get rid of the cogwheel? Or does it get a pass because you can see it used in, among other places, socialist emblems?
You said it yourself, they didn’t do the right thing because they want the Nazis fighting for them.
I didn't say that. In peace times it would have been the right thing, but Ukraine isn't at peace, and not dissolving the regiment is necessitated by the war whether the reformed Azov ended up with 80% or 20% Nazis. (According to the Ukrainian state is was something like 20%, and not the really hardcore ones. Presumably also includes Strasserites and all kinds of stuff).
I do have reason to believe they’re just throwing a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon: they’re at war and they want command and control of the Nazi regiment!
Then why go through (enough) denazification to have swathes of Nazis leave?
Also, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with Nazis dying on the front. I fundamentally oppose them running through the streets intimidating people or worse, I oppose them in any legislative capacity, but I don't mind them holding back an invader. What's there to loose? They survive and we're not worse off than before, they die, well, then that's that.
Or, put differently: Would you support sending them to the front as a penalty battalion?
Bonus: The Verfassungschutz pdf, page 38, section 2.35. The fuckers appropriated the Antifa flags of all things. If you simply outlaw everything they're using and everything that looks like something they're using they're going to appropriate absolutely everything to deny it to us. I wonder if the ADL will copy that one into their list, they're not always known for having the best of takes.
And while I'm at it, page 82, translated:
The Wolfsangel was an identifying feature of the youth organisation "Junge Front" (JF), which was banned in 1982.
Its use in connection with a banned organisation is punishable by law.
Independent uses, e.g. in town and club coats of arms are not punishable.
1982. It took the symbol that long to even land on the list, presumably because only then did Nazis stumble across it while looking through SS division logos.
You hear that everybody? The Nazi regiment can keep using their hate symbol! Yeah, because they denazified. How can we tell they denazified? They said so. Those are the rules. Who made the rules? The Germans, why? No we can’t trust the ADL. Who says? A German. No, they’re not on one of the .de instances, why?
If it was Azov which said it I wouldn't even begin to trust it. But it wasn't Azov it was Ukrainian state structures.
Who made the rules? The Germans, why?
Because we know where that shit leads and are on top of it. To be on top of it, we actually understand it and don't simply play symbol association games.
No we can’t trust the ADL. Who says? A German.
That's rather harsh. But they have had quite some blunders in the past. Heart in the right place but actionist kind of stuff.
A German. No, they’re not on one of the .de instances, why?
So you trust the ukranian state not to be fascist so much that you’ll take their word that there aren’t any Nazis over their actions of leaving the dogwhistle symbol and very well known name.
That’s going way beyond gullible, but if you’re willing to look past the ukranian states’ past actions and take it at its word who am I to judge? I mean, as a German you definitely have plenty of success and skill in recognizing Nazis and keeping them out of power: just look at nato and the frg of olde and afd etc today! Clearly Germans can recognize Nazis and effectively keep them out of power! What was I thinking suggesting that a German was being pedantic and providing a smokescreen for Nazis? There’s no systemic historical precedent for that!
so much that you’ll take their word that there aren’t any Nazis
They never claimed that, the estimation was that about 20% of post-denazification Azov troops had an extreme right wing world view.
just look at nato
What. You might mean the CIA, the Regan administration was straight-up fash.
and the frg of olde
Yeah we had an autumn about that one.
and afd etc today
You mean the party 47% want straight outlawed? You know what's even more interesting? 10% of AfD voters want to outlaw it!
2/3rds of their poll results are protest voters not sharing their ideology and due to those 10% I think we can be sure that many of those are just doing it in opinion polls, and won't actually cast ballots for them. Those protest votes are by and large from the east which has a significantly lower precentage of people with closed right-wing world-views than the west.
Certainly brought the whole "the east still has shit political representation" issue back into focus, though OTOH I just have to be a besserwessi and say that noone is fucking stopping them from representing themselves.
Oh, another tidbit: Many AfD voters are on welfare. The AfD implementing their stated policy would move wealth from that group to voters of other parties, so much so normal, but they on top of that want to disenfranchise then, tie voting rights to paying tax. If you're into psychoanalysis and its recognition of forces such as Nazis as catabolic that's like chef's kiss, the fuckers even want to eat themselves.
Also if you dislike the AfD so much why are you joining their ranks by endorsing Russian propaganda?
In any case: Azov is not a German battalion. Have a look at where Svoboda polls. Go over to youtube and watch some Dylan Burns, the man is gay and on the ground there.
Stop defending Nazis.
Stop being an actionist and base your decisions on data and analysis. How you analyse I don't really care, come up with your own yardsticks but do triple down on applying them thoroughly and consistently.
Oh it’s only 1/5 Nazis! In that case they get to use the wolfsangel but they can’t use the totenkopf until they hit 1/8.
This is absurd. They were Nazis, they used a symbol to appeal to Nazis. The name became synonymous with Nazis. Now the claim is they’re only 1/5 Nazis but it’s okay to use the same symbol and name.
At this point what would convince you? If their marches included the Bellamy salute? If they brought the black sun back?
You’re either so naive you can’t recognize the “new look, same great taste” strategy or you’re defending Nazis. I’ve been assuming the latter because the former is both sad and frightening.
At this point what would convince you? If their marches included the Bellamy salute?
Unsupervised Nazis would do exactly that, yes. They don't, so their number is either diluted to a degree where they don't have cultural impact (Azov grew significantly after that 20% number) and/or the inerior ministry is keeping a lid on things by cracking down on Nazis who do Nazi things.
And I mean this is what it's about, isn't it? Whether those Nazis do Nazi things. If they're Nazis and don't do Nazi things but instead risk their neck defending the country, why the fuck would anyone be opposed.
In that vein:
You’re either so naive you can’t recognize the “new look, same great taste” strategy or you’re defending Nazis.
I think it's you who's protecting Nazis by insisting that they stay away from Russian soldiers. Why do you worry so much about their safety?
You’d have a good point if the ukranian state was doing some kind of gloryless Suicide charge with them. Based on all they’ve said they’re integrating the Nazi militia into the state to fight alongside normal people and become war heroes.
If you'd send them only on suicide missions they wouldn't cooperate. Still, each Nazi on the front is one non-Nazi not needed at the front.
As to heroes: Needs must. In Germany we're nuking Nazis in the military from orbit, we're also disallowing Nazis from fighting in Ukraine's foreign legions, because we don't want to have Nazis skilled in combat. That, however, is a secondary concern when you've got Russia invading you.
As to heroes the second: The likes of right sector are very unpopular, politically speaking, in Ukraine. There's plenty of non-Nazi war heroes -- another reason to not have Nazis fight alone, so that there's no valour that they can earn alone. They won't be able to capitalise on having fought.
Germany would never do what the ukranian state is doing, but they need every fighting man. Never mind the fact that ukranian doctrine has been combined arms warfare with relatively small numbers of soldiers so they’re not actually in a situation where numbers are a huge benefit.
The naziism is a serious problem and it’s good that azov “denazified” but also they’re not popular and it’s no big deal.
They can’t capitalize on having fought and aren’t gaining any standing, but azov was being lauded in the press as defenders of Mariupol.
You’re just saying whatever let’s you keep defending the Nazis.
Now it could be that you want to defend the ukranian state, but you don’t need to rush to its side every time. It can be making grave mistakes and doing the wrong thing by any measure and still be a state you support. Just don’t support the Nazis, that’s all I ask.
Take a page from the communists and limit yourself to critical support.
Take a page from the communists and limit yourself to critical support.
Take a page from Antifa and not call a huge organisation Nazi because there's a couple of Nazis in there.
My main issue, here, from the beginning, has been you trivialising the term. You still do it, without reflection, in an attempt to win an argument on the internet. As if it was some two-sided partisan US politics or such.
Take that same exact page and recognize that if there’s ten liberals at the table with a Nazi there’s eleven Nazis at the table.
An organization that accepts Nazis is a Nazi organization.
I’m not trivializing the fact that the ukranian state actively welcomes Nazis. I’m responding appropriately with revulsion and disdain.
To the extent that there is any path to peace that leaves Donetsk and Luhansk in the control of the ukranian state, it does not hinge on accepting and welcoming Nazis.
If the state is doing so, it’s not out of necessity, but alignment.
There is no argument to be won here. Anyone reading this thread of comments will wonder why it’s so important that Nazis are accepted. I’m recommending you, as a person who ought to be familiar with the insidious nature of fascism, stop defending Nazis.
If the state is doing so, it’s not out of necessity, but alignment.
So then you're ready to call Russia a Nazi state over fielding a fuckton of fascist regiments? Have a look at Utkin's tattoos. Everyone in Russia knew, noone higher up cared.
They’re both liberal fascist states. One was put in place by nato after they realized they couldn’t just carve it up, the other was put in place by nato to oppose the first when they denied it membership.
Stop deflecting and trying to place me in support or opposition to the members of this absolutely avoidable conflict and most importantly: stop defending nazis.
One was put in place by nato after they realized they couldn’t just carve it up
Oh my sides I dare you to say that in Russia. Bring a stopwatch so you can time how long it takes for you to arrive in a prison camp in Siberia. The FSB doesn't suffer that kind of talk, "Russia is controlled by its enemies" (from their POV. In reality Russia has exactly one enemy: Itself).
this absolutely avoidable
Absolutely avoidable, true: Russia could stop being imperialist and, for a change, and harkening back to Lenin's times, focus on developing itself. Like Ukraine did. Which is why the Siloviki in Russia can't have that happen, it sets a bad precedent for a culturally related people to gets its shit in order, people actually getting what they want, being better off, all that kind of stuff.
Okay first things first, I never said Russia was controlled by its enemies, second:
This isn’t about my views on geopolitics, it’s about ohs you need to stop defending Nazis. Do that and we can have a wide ranging conversation about any number of topics.
Okay first things first, I never said Russia was controlled by its enemies,
Explain that to the FSB officer.
But first, stop defending Nazis!
I never defended Nazis, and you have yet to make an argument that doesn't bog down to "I hate that /u/barsoap is right about symbols". It's you who's trivialising the term.
What’s not a Nazi symbol, the wolfsangel (which you agreed was a Nazi symbol in the context of a right wing militia just a few days ago) or the black sun (whose removal you claimed was semiotic denazification enough)?
Instead of making me dredge up terrible things you’ve said, why not just stop defending Nazis?
Azov isn't a Nazi org any more, thus the Wolfsangel is fine. Because there was more than semiotic denazification. You also can't be publicly/actively racist or homophobic and whatever inside Azov Ukraine really cracked down on associated politics as a whole. As said: If Azov was still a Nazi org, why did so many Nazis leave?
And are you seriously asking whether the black sun is a Nazi symbol. The SS used it in an esoteric context, the only other use I'm aware of is use esotericists using it as a specific symbol of evil, "a nightmare that feels like paradise while you're asleep", but that's an obscure corner of an obscure corner. Also, based as fuck.
Of course I’m not asking. I’m responding to your assertion that after 2015 azov wasn’t spreading nazism. They clearly were both incubating and spreading it during that time. I chose the example most apropos to our discussion and brought up their semiotics. You said it (without specification) wasn’t a nazi symbol and I asked which of the two nazi symbols wasn’t one.
So, stop providing cover for the spread of Nazism. Stop defending Nazis.
Now how many Nazis can a group have before the wolfsangel is a problem? We agree that Nazis use it as a dogwhistle, we agree that in the context of a far right militia it’s clearly Nazi imagery. Is it half? If your group is half Nazis you get a pass? One quarter? One singular Nazi? I’d argue that since the context is a far right militia that just fucking last year claimed to have “denazified” the number is zero. You can’t use the same imagery you used last year to appeal to Nazis and credibly claim that it’s different now.
I say that because I’m not gullible and I don’t defend Nazis.
The only sensible use a society can make of nazis is as catapult ammunition. You DO NOT, under any circumstances, want to give fascists actual combat training and military action. That's how you get Freikorps after the war. Why would you want that?
Because read a bit more into the thread I addressed that. Right-wing bullshit is politically rather less popular in Ukraine than it was in WWI-era Germany. Context matters.
I don't know what you think I'm trying to justify. You said:
When you see people on the hard left screeching about Ukrainian Nazis or advancing absurd peace deals then they’ve been gotten at.
I explained that the 'hard left' has been concerned about Nazis in Ukraine for a long time. You can understand that communists are going to keep a close eye on countries that ban communist parties. Yes other places have a far right problem too. Communists keep an eye on reactionaries elsewhere as well but it's hardly germane to a conversation about the circumstances of a war in Ukraine, is it?
It's not the historical "concern", it's the constant parroting of Russian talking points by useful idiots on the far left. "Oh look at these Nazis [showing picture from 2014]", meanwhile Ukraine is actually a pluralist democracy and has a professional / conscript army fighting an invasion. They're not Nazis in aggregate or even substantially. It's sort of shit I'm obviously referring to.
The pictures I'm taking about have been taken and shared since the invasion. This is not 'historical' in the sense of pre-dating the invasion.
In any event, if the people you're talking to are discussing reasons for the invasion, the salient facts are the ones that pre-date the invasion. Nobody had the benefit of being able to see facts or pictures taken after the invasion before it occurred; these newer details could not have factored into the equation beforehand. Which may explain (I have no idea because you're talking in the abstract and not providing receipts) why people would bring up the (highly relevant) historical context.
Will things improve after the war? It's hard to say now but considering that Ukraine went after the communist party eight or more years ago, it's unlikely. The fate of 'pro-Russian' parties depends on who wins the war. They'll either be demonised or praised for being 'right all along'. You can guess how the narrative will be rewritten, either way.
Unfortunately, the aftermath of this war will be terrible for years. That outlook is even bleaker if Ukraine loses with any kind of quasi-military intact. They are now even more heavily armed than before, they will be pissed at losing, and they will be more battle hardened than ever. So even if Russia wins, the political landscape will look different throughout the region, but it's unlikely to become a pluralist democracy. (Please notice the 'ifs' in this paragraph, I have made no prediction as to who will 'win'.)
You can refer to whatever you like. You are imputing motive on people for saying things you don't like. That does not mean that the imputed motive is the real motive. Some people have a more nuanced take on the war than you are willing to accept. Having a nuanced understanding of a complicated issue requires an understanding of as many factors as possible.
Looking at a process (e.g. war) in all its relations (internal, historical, political economic, to start with) is the basic Marxist approach and yet is alien to the liberal/bourgeois approach, so I understand if this is unfamiliar to you. If you want to see whether communists do this kind of thing with any other topic (it's literally every topic) please pick up almost any Marxist text. Marx's 'Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte' is a good example of this 'historical materialism'.
I don't want to impute motive to you, so I'll just say that I don't understand why you're trying so hard to erase or apologise for the fact that Ukraine had and has a Nazi problem. Nobody that I know of is claiming that the Nazis are in control of every state civil or military organ. Usually, the claim is that the yanks funded anti-Russian, pro-west separatists and the Nazi militias to provoke Russia. Read that how you will.
most people of the left or right can see the situation for what it is
I couldn't disagree more. In this thread I have someone telling me Ukraine is currently pushing Russia back despite the front not moving appreciably for nearly a year now. It's also common to hear Putin described as a mustache-twirling villain who just woke up one day and said "I will conquer the whole of Ukraine in three days," a take similarly detached from reality.
advancing absurd peace deals then they've been gotten at.
You do realize that in order to minimize (working class) casualties some kind of peace deal needs to be signed? And in order to sign a peace deal first there needs to be a ceasefire? The sooner the ceasefire starts, the better.
Are you saying that western politicians torpedoing any kind of truce and/or peace deal is "Russian misinfo"?
spoiler
Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April [2022], according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.
The apparent revelation raises some key questions: Why did Western leaders want to stop Kyiv from signing a seemingly good deal with Moscow? Do they consider the conflict a proxy war with Russia? And, most importantly, what would it take to get back to a deal?
JACQUES BAUD: * In fact, in my book I mention only Ukrainian sources, and Ukrainian sources said explicitly that Boris Johnson and the West basically prevented a peace agreement. So that’s not an invention from some Putin partisan here the West; that’s also what the Ukrainians felt. And you had a third occasion when that happened, that was in August, when you had this meeting between [Turkish president] Erdoğan and Zelenskyy in Lviv. And here again, Erdoğan offered his services to mediate some negotiation with the Russians, and just a few days after that Boris Johnson came unexpectedly in Kiev, and again, in a very famous press conference he said explicitly, ‘No negotiations with the Russians. We have to fight. There is no room for negotiation with the Russians.’
the cost of the war
Should we ignore the significant human and economic costs of the ongoing war and the support for the military-industrial complex? Why? Is this some kind of noble war against Sauron or what?
Yeah no-one is against a peace deal at this point. Just against the one where you let they totalitarian agressor win. Anyone who knows anything about history knows you have to stop those kind of regimes at the earliest possible moment.
Here's the kicker: Assuming Russia is willing to negotiate a deal, would it honor that deal? It did, after all, guarantee security in exchange for Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear weapons, and it broke that commitment.
Ukraine has very good reason to believe that Russia would only use a deal to stop the war as an opportunity to build its strength for another invasion, later. There's strong evidence that it's not the capture of separatist territories that is Putin's goal, but the denial of Ukrainian as a distinct cultural identity, and to prevent it from aligning culturally with the West (even leaving aside the issue of NATO).
If you think the enemy won't honor a deal, and won't stop its aggression long-term—and Ukranian leadership has said that that's exactly what they believe loudly and often—what's the incentive to negotiate for a ceasefire?
On your first point: Russia's argument for why they have gone back on the security exchange for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament is one of the very same arguments NATO uses when claiming that they never promised russia that they wouldn't expand NATO east of Germany... The US either lies, and denies making the promise (they did) or they say that they promised the soviet union, which is not the same thing as Russia. Ukraine had a discontinuity in government in 2014: this is something they and the EU acknowledged officially during Ukraine's application to join the EU... So idk if the government of Ukraine today is a distinct entity from the political formation in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union, but that is what Ukraine and the EU have said as much.
Your first point in your second paragraph is something that could be said of Ukraine/NATO just as well. If anything, Ukraine has completely expended its reserve of weapons and now relies on a dwindling supply of old weapons from NATO... it may have just gone through a 3rd army in this last offensive... if anything a peace agreement would give NATO more time to arm Ukraine for another time when they decide to break the peace agreement... This isn't based on speculation or a belief that Ukrainians are dishonest (unlike most speculation about Russia) because this is exactly what Angela Merkle said Minsk I & II were for: to use a peace deal to give NATO time to arm Ukraine for war... In order for peace to be achieved, both sides are going to have to accept some sort of good faith. If that can't be done then more people will continue to have their lives thrown away.
I’ve been following the history of the breakup of the Soviet Union, and NATO’s involvement for decades, so I hear what you’re saying. I just think it’s irrelevant to the prospect of peace talks now. Ukraine now has a people and government who do not want to be part Russia. Whatever good reasons Putin feels he had to launch a pre-emptive invasion are irrelevant. Dubya thought he had a good reason to attack Iraq. I called that, and him, evil. I’m applying the same standards to Putin: The other side’s bad behavior does not excuse his response.
Ukraine is now facing invasion by an enemy that’s made it clear by its actions and rhetoric that the goal is cultural extinction of Ukraine, that’s proved itself faithless in past agreements (whatever its internal reasoning), and that shows no sign of willingness to negotiate. They have the support of the West now; who knows about the future? What is their incentive to sue for peace?
(Withdrawing Western support from Ukraine now to force them to the negotiating table has a high likelihood of resulting in a genocide, given the evidence. The thing that might bring Putin to the negotiation table for actual peace at this point is threats backed more directly by Europe and NATO, and that seems like bad news.)
That is your prerogative to doubt, but as for my understanding, not only has Putin himself said explicitly that there is no Ukrainian identity, but that motive best explains Russian military actions. Other possible motives, e.g. countering NATO or protecting civilians in separatist regions, don’t hold up under critical analysis. (Assuming that Putin is a rational actor.)
The Soviets weren't removed from Afghanistan any more than we were -- they left because they lacked popular support and kept taking losses (because we were arming terrorists who would go on to do 9/11, but I'm sure that type of blowback won't come from arming Ukranian neo-Nazis!). The parts of Ukraine Russia is occupying largely wanted to leave Ukraine before the war even started. It's not the same scenario.
Even your best case scenario is "fight a bloody stalemate until one side runs out of troops," which is incredibly destructive to Ukraine even if they win, and of course they won't, because the smaller country that can't just sit back behind extensive defenses isn't going to win a bloody stalemate.
Just against the one where you let they totalitarian agressor win. Anyone who knows anything about history knows you have to stop those kind of regimes at the earliest possible moment.
So you are against a peace deal?
You do know that the fabled ukrainian counteroffensive has failed completely? How many more regular ukrainians should die in hopeless counteroffensives?
Btw it seems like you don't know what totalitarian means. Actual academic historians tend to avoid this term since the seventies.
The Ukrainians are the ones who can decide if and when they want to surrender. They are gaining ground every day and have all the time they want to kill as many invaders as they want. Let's see how many men, women and money Putin is prepared to waste before he eventually retreats, Afhganistan style
I'm sorry, are you the same person I've been talking to? Because it seems like you haven't actually read anything I've written.
The Ukrainians are the ones who can decide if and when they want to surrender.
Western politicians actively sabotaged peace talks. Read previous comments for sources.
They are gaining ground every day
This has no basis in reality. Even overly optimistic western sources have admitted the failure of the spring counteroffensive.
have all the time they want
How can you be this wrong? They have limited manpower and more and more soldiers die every day. Every week spent warring is a huge burden on their economy.
I'm not gonna answer you again since you are completely out of touch with reality. Even prowar western journalists are more careful with their wording.
You do realise that a peace deal / ceasefire which involves Ukraine giving up land, sovereignty or anything else is horseshit being pushed around by useful idiots? And who is feeding the far left with this crap? Russia because of course they are. And you only have to look at prior deals by Russia to see how believable any peace would be do. Or ask Yevgeny Prigozhin how deals work.
You do realise that a peace deal / ceasefire which involves Ukraine giving up land, sovereignty or anything else is horseshit being pushed around by useful idiots?
The counteroffensive failed spectacularly, even western sources admit this.
How many more people you want to send in the meat grinder?
Here's an idea: call a ceasefire and let the diplomats negotiate, and let's see what happens. Let's see what actual ukrainians want after a few months of negotiation. Maybe Boris Johnson should fuck off. At least people are not dying until then. Outlandish, I know.
And who is feeding the far left with this crap?
Now this is qanon level conspiracy theory. I am against war between capitalist nations in general. On one side you have an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country, and on the other side you have an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country.
Since I live in a NATO country I criticise NATO more, since they are the ruling class above me and there's enough criticism of Putin around here anyway.
As far as deals go, US/Ukraine isn't trustworthy either. The Minsk agreement was bullshit. What happened to nord stream btw?
It seems they also have a tendency to consider NATO as cartoons villains. Also, tankies are not the average lefties, they are at the extreme of the left.
The bombs he was fleeing from were decided by NATO, the militias were funded and supported by NATO; the same one that eventually found him and sodomized him to death with a bayonet. What will be evidence enough for you? Hillary's "we came, we saw, he died." quip?
Yes. Gaddafi was also certainly killed based on French intelligence, and there is substantial evidence that the men who assassinated him were French assets. Part of the reason, apart from the broader geopolitical aim of annihilating a country which wanted to engage in the construction of international monetary and commerical systems outside of the orbit and control of the American petro-dollar, Gaddafi had essentially bribed Sarkozy at a certain point and was holding this over the latter's head (Sarkozy is infamously corrupt). See:
Hegemon's have to rule by fear. Read any bloodsoaked page from the history of the Roman Empire. Fear is best instilled through unimaginable atrocity. What do you think the rulers of the rest of Africa and the Middle East thought after they saw how Gaddafi, head of the most prosperous (per-capita, quality of life, standard of living, etc.) state in Africa, ended up?
"Cartoon villain" here means "a villain who is just intrinsically evil and does evil things as a result." Contrast this with real people, who generally have material or ideological motivational for the actions they take.
The left views NATO as evil not because it's full of cartoon villains, but because it is an organization that consciously, due to material and ideological motivations, chooses to immiserate the global south for the benefit of its constituent countries' ruling classes.
I use it similarly to what is described in this Wikipedia article, in particular the last paragraph of the introduction is what disturbs me the most with some Lemmy users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
The last paragraph quotes fucking Ross Douthat, come on now
Lots of terms need defining. "Illiberal" just means not capitalistic, which yeah that's all leftists. What is authoritarian? Usually a definition that gets thrown around applies more to capitalist countries vs those listed.
So it's just a western communist that supports non Western communist projects? 🤔
I love it when liberals use 'illiberal' as a criticism. Begging the question much? Of course we're illiberal we're anti-capitalists!
Don't whisper it in hushed tones as if we're being shy about it and might be embarrassed. Liberalism is the cause of so much misery in the world I'd be more embarrassed to be called a liberal.
The best of it is that even liberals accept that liberal society is atrocious; they just throw up their hands, claim that it's the only option, and benefit decadently from the system while the world burns as if nothing could or should be done about it. The nerve.
It's essentially cope for them not just supporting "nominally" socialist countries because their stance is one of anti-imperialism. Iran should have nukes.
Isn't Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the Russo-Georgian war imperialism? I still don't get them, except being blinded by their hate of USA's war crimes, which I can understand, but it still seems like an irrational conclusion to become a tankie. They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.
Wait, are you saying Saakashvili has done an imperialism?
Because even western/EU reports have confirmed that Georgia started that war, not Russia.
They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.
"From 24 February 2022, which marked the start of the large-scale armed attack by the Russian Federation, to 30 July 2023, OHCHR recorded 26,015 civilian casualties in the country: 9,369 killed and 16,646 injured"
Almost 10 thousand civilians killed is horrible.
But compare this to Iraq: it's less than the first month of the war in Iraq, and no US politicians was tried for war crimes. Maybe you should ponder this factoid.
If you live in a NATO country maybe you should demand Blair and Bush to be tried for their war crimes. If you live in the west you should spend more energy of criticizing the ruling class above you.
"supporting or refusing to criticize" This is a made up leftist. Per definition there is no leftist that uncritically supports a right wing capitalist country.
Marxists, following Lenin, define imperialism as the monopoly of finance capital. Not as a synonym for 'conquest', 'annexation', 'empire' (not that I'm saying all three necessarily apply to Russia in Ukraine—a conclusion on that isn't relevant, here).
When US (Anglo-European) finance capital dominates the world through the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and petrodollar, supported by a network of however many hundreds of military bases, all paid for by it's vassals and enemies due to said dominance, there's little to no room for anyone else to even consider being imperialist.
We can discuss that if you like. I'll likely need others to chip in. I'm not proposing that I have all the answers. It's not something with a clear answer. But we can't have the debate at all unless we agree on common definitions and frames of reference. Otherwise it feels as though liberals simply do not understand what's being said. It's just talking past one another, where one side has a coherent definition and framework and the other side… doesn't.
I'll let you decide whether you can honestly say you have a theoretically sound concept of imperialism depending on how much dedicated literature on imperialism you've read.
Yeah it's important that we, as Marxists, therefore proceeding scientific,ally, make very clear from the onset as to what we mean when we use the term 'imperialist' with this more specific, narrow, Leninist definition which only really applies to modern capitalism, or more precisely the modern capitalist world-system. Conceptual clarification is essential for any scientific endeavor, including Marxism.
Even on this definition however, we can note that it is perfectly possible (and concretely, empirically, historically confirm this possibility by looking at the international situation pre-WW1) that there be several powers or polarized groups of powers each of which behaves imperialistically in the Leninist sense. The difference today is that we currently still have a more or less unipolar as opposed to multipolar imperialist (Leninist sense) world-system.
If someone calls Russia 'imperialist' in a different sense, then they might not be wrong, and saying that they are because our definition doesn't apply isn't relevant beyond the fact that there's confusion over the concepts being used because people are equivocating between them, simply because we are using the same term/sound/word/signifier. If we do the latter we are engaging in a semantic debate disguised as, because confused with, a substantive debate.
Good points. I also wouldn't be opposed to accepting that capitalists in Russia would/will try to become imperialistic in the monopoly of finance capital sense. In the one hand, the logic of capital might force their hand. On the other hand, capitalists are gonna capitalist, in part because they fetishise the hoarding of wealth like everyone else living under capitalism.
Whether Russian imperialism becomes a realistic possibility, though… I'd be interested in seeing some stats on that, interpreted in light of the idea that the next type of multipolarity will be quite different to the one at the turn of the twentieth century. Ig if anyone's done that leg work it'd be Michael Hudson but I've not come across it if he has.
There's a concept called "critical support", which most "tankies" are practicing. You have criticism of a side but its the lesser evil so you support it despite your criticism. You won't hear much of that criticism publicly though because that's counterproductive.
Like if I want the US to recognize the DPRK as a sovereign state so we can at least begin discussing Korean reunification, why would I bother mentioning my criticism of Juche?
I would avoid saying "lesser evil" for critical support cases, because revolutionary defeatism exists for lesser evil situations where nothing is progressing against the primary contradiction. It's more a recognition that a shitty thing can be progressive/forward moving relative to its opposition. Russia winning/getting a peace deal with Donbas and Crimea out of Ukraine gets us much closer to ending global imperialism than Ukraine getting it's land back or worse.
We want the larger capitalist empire to loose to the smaller capitalist empire because that leads to better outcomes. Saying otherwise is telling half truths at best.
No. Both are bourgeois states and yes I prefer the weaker one winning in this case, but the framing of "big vs small" is very ignorant of any reason to support something critically
Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now, but it's in no way a defining feature. Sure, I'm absolutely fine with that detail being described so, because it's true. But you minimized the analysis to that. "Framing" is ambiguous and I'm ignoring that, I guess you could call it framing, but your framing is irrelevant to my analysis
Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now,
It IS relevant because its the fundamental reason why we can say we'll get positive outcomes from this case. It was even baked into your explanation "ending global imperialism".
but the framing of "big vs small" is very ignorant
Fair enough on the framing, just meant that I ignored it for the first half, otherwise the reply was not engaging with you up to that point, but I wrote sloppily.
But you did not originally say "bigger and smaller IMPERIALIST" you said capitalist empire. It's a totally different discussion which is where we started speaking past on another. I still don't think that's correct, because I don't think a new analysis like Lenin made of imperialism would find Russia as materially equivalent in form or content of imperialism at all (maybe requiring a new word for the type of imperialism done by the US/NATO like super-imperialism or so. That's why I still hold the point that it's not just "bigger v smaller" that matters, but the Qualitative difference that then arose from the quantity of Imperialism performed/exported capital and coerced labour. They should be understood as 2 phenomenon at this point, not a big and small
The general "tankie" position is that the people of Donbas, who mostly do not want to remain part of Ukraine, will not stop suffering attacks without Russia fighting Ukraine off. Russia does not seem interested in siphoning resources from or subjugating the people of Donbas, as they did not the people of Crimea, who merely became Russian citizens. This is very different from US carpetbombing for oil.
There is no such thing as a neutral analyst but yes, even neoliberals talked about the civil war at one point and the Nazi problem and the pogroms and so on. Given this, and given the popular support Russia has among the people of that same region, and that it tried for 8 years to negotiate peaceful secession while Ukraine participated in those talks in bad faith, it sure seems like something very different from, and I cannot stress this enough, flying to the opposite side of the world to carpet bomb in the name of freedom and in the service of oil companies.
That's no problem, we call all learn new things every day. You can read about the history of Conrad Henlein (?) and the politics of the annexation to understand the analogy here
The analogy is that the invading country came to rescue their ethnic brethren. How does it 'make less sense' when it's correct that they had popular support in the region?
The crisis wasnt started the donbass seceded. The crisis started because there was a coup in keiv. The new government was shelling the donbass long before the invasion. None of that happened in your example.
It's weird how you want to pivot from separatists being propped by their 'big brothers' to "they weren't using exactly the same weapons so it doesn't count".
Nazi's were certainly using armed provocations to provoke the Czechoslovak government into intervention so they could pounce. The only big difference is actually that the latter were much more reluctant and appeasing to the separatists. Which didn't help because annexation was the only goal for the nazi's anyway.
You're in a thread with half a dozen comments like "wow libs and tankies are celebrating this?", followed by a bunch of "tankies" explaining (again) that they do not actually like modern Russia.
Ah thank you, I was too hasty and didn't see the name. I had thought you were a lemmy referring to the molotov ribbentrop. Thank you for correcting me, do you have any recommendations for what I should I read to be more knowledgeable in this subject?
It regularly does, social-democracy seems to generally ensure better living condition to its people. I don't see any extreme left or right regime that provided better conditions than social-democracies.
Do social democracies also ensure better living conditions for the impoverished nations they continue to exploit so they can support their own standards of living?
I don't see any extreme left or right regime that provided better conditions than social-democracies.
I'm not sure what you define as an "extreme regime" but you can try looking at Cuba, China, or the USSR, for starters.
I think they could improve their impact on developing nations, especially if we consider the impact of colonialism, but otherwise, yes, I think they contribute to their economic growth which keeps lifting people out of poverty.
It doesn't seem like USSR or Cuba's people had on average better lives than in social-democracies. For China, I think it's getting better, mostly thanks to the intense economical ties with the rest of the world that they tied once they decide to abandon the communist economy. However, they continue having notable issues with authoritarianism, which seem to be getting worse with the current leader.
lol, they (european "social-democracies" and US/EU finance capital) are the root cause of colonialism and the financial system has been built around the global south's over-exploitation at gunpoint. That has never really stopped. Any over-exploited, colonized country that expresses too much democracy or sovereignty ends up invaded, sanctioned, or couped...
Cuba is much better now than before the revolution, when mobsters ruled its cities and landlords ruled over the peasantry with an iron fist. There was no democracy there before, and the moment Cuba had a more democratic system it was under assault from the US. The USSR and Cuba were able to develop the way they did in spite of the bourgeois democracies that invaded or assaulted them at every opportunity
Other countries has intense economical ties to western capital, like India. But their development is nothing compared to China's. They have incredible levels of poverty and a lack of development. I am sure you will invent some alternative theory as to why China was able to eliminate extreme poverty, but the truth is that "social democracies" in Europe and NA have notable issues with authoritarianism against the global south. They looted the rest of the world at gunpoint and now tell them their development is all because they are lazy or corrupt.
"Better conditions than social-democracies" is a tall order considering that most (every?) Marxist-Leninist state was formed in impoverished, exploited countries, and have frequently been targeted by sanctions, boycotts, and so on. If you told a Chinese peasant in the 40's that their country's life expectancy would someday exceed that of the US, they'd call you a liar. Certainly it wasn't about to happen under the Nationalists or anybody else.
Not everyone is allowed to have social democracy. For example, Norway's economy benefits greatly from their oil revenues, but in much of the world, the presence of oil resources is called an "oil curse," because Western governments destabilize and overthrow governments that bring those profits back to the people. When Iran's left-leaning (but not communist) government in the 50's tried to reclaim control of their oil from their British colonial overlords, the CIA did a coup and installed a fascist. There are countless other stories of this happening all around the world.
No country has lifted more people out of poverty and extreme poverty than China. Granting developing countries a second option for investment is an enormous boon for the world, especially since China is much less restrictive over other countries' domestic economic policies compared to the IMF.
This is why I would argue that, even if you disagree with China's system, if you want any other system besides capitalism to be available to people in the developing world, then you should recognize that China is furthering that goal. I don't consider China's system to be perfect or ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but I've read enough history to see more ideal systems get crushed time and again.
It's as if leftists do not actually like Putin or any of the other ghouls on the Russian side, but are instead critical of NATO and willing to consider NATO opponents as rational actors instead of cartoon villains.
I oppose NATO over other Ghoulish countries because it's a greater threat to the world right now.
Russia is a country run by cartoon villains. Can you not picture Shoigu sneaking up behind someone with a large round bomb that says ACME on it, only to discover that the fuse has been accidentally lit by a soldiers cigarette?
I think most people of the left or right can see the situation for what it is. However Russia is obviously crafting messages to appeal to those on the extremes. When you see people on the hard left screeching about Ukrainian Nazis or advancing absurd peace deals then they've been gotten at. When you see people from the hard right screeching about Ukrainian immigrants or the cost of the war vs America / Europe first then you know they've been gotten at.
As for Prigozhin, I think most people, even Russians are glad that he is dead but for different reasons. Seems clear that Putin murdered him for his disloyalty but nobody in Ukraine is going to mourn his loss for the spent force that is Wagner.
People think Ukraine has a Nazi problem because western media was shouting about it from the rooftops for a decade before the invasion. Then they only whispered it if they mentioned it at all but they kept on posting pictures of Ukrainian soldiers with Nazi insignia plastered on their faces or their equipment. Or photos of politicians with a portrait of Bandera on the wall above their desk. The gullible liberal journalists didn't even know what they had to censor out at the start of the war.
Unlike libs, the 'hard' left didn't start looking at Ukraine on the date of the invasion and they didn't wipe their memories clean of the historical context. A conspiracy involving Russian propagandists isn't needed to explain this.
Neither are Russian propagandists needed to explain that racist westerners are going to be racist against immigrants and refugees, wherever they're from.
Ukraine has had a far right problem but lots of countries do. Doesn't mean it's more than the fringe as it is in other countries and it's CERTAINLY not a credible talking point or justification for war to invade a sovereign democracy. And the stupid part is that this shit still goes onto today, even to this comment where you attempt to justify it.
The collective west does have a Nazi problem, it's acute in Ukraine.
Ukraine has been getting shelled for over 8 years now, it's been the Ukrainian government doing it, and that specifically has been what provoked the invasion.
It's just observable reality, idk what's so hard about remembering events from a few years ago for liberals
Svoboda having one seat in the Rada kind of acute?
As far as general patriotism is concerned sure that's on an all-time high in Ukraine but guess what, that kind of stuff happens if you get invaded. Which started in 2014, don't forget that, and Ukraine has been under hybrid attack from Russia since at least 2000, the 90s being only a brief respite from centuries of colonialism and that only because Russia didn't know WTF it was doing.
The important part is the type of nationalism you see. And that's much closer to the likes of the SNP than to Nazis.
"general patriotism" I see swastikas, things that sub in for swastikas, iron crosses, and totenkopfs.
You can fuck right off with the "centuries of colonialism" that's literlly the west repackaging its own history to accuse others of.
I thought you guys were the ones who said that portions of a country can unilaterally vote to leave and its okay. That was what you lot pulled with Serbia, why does it suddenly no longer apply here?
So the Bundeswehr is a Nazi org because it's using the iron cross as emblem?
So Russia suddenly isn't European? That would come as news to Europe.
I was a bit too young to have much of an opinion or impact there. In any case very much unlike Ukraine, Serbia actually was genociding people. "Get genocided by your central state, get independence" is more than fair if you ask me.
The Ukrainian state has been killing civilians indiscriminately in its two breakaway regions, they were just doing it for much longer than it took for any kind of intervention in Serbia.
When the west starts to pretend to care about muslims, you know they're full of shit about any purported genocides. They went from pretending to care about Kosovar Albanians to murdering millions of muslims over the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's pretty funny having iron crosses constantly showing up on all the UA vehicles- I think we all know what they're going for, they just left off a few lines.
Russia has not been a part of 'the west', certainly not as far as most of the EU is concerned unless you're trying to be intentionally obtuse
It has been a colonial empire for quite a while now. Or do you really think this didn't happen with military force? That it's just the natural extent of the Russian nation? Or that the Empire didn't brutally exploit every new territory they conquered? "Colony" doesn't mean "overseas".
Every single larger, or affluent, European country engaged in colonialism.
That's the Cossack cross. The Cossacks got it from the Templars, same root as the Iron Cross.
Отъебись ватник блядь.
Were the Russians also doing chattel slavery like the west was for literally hundreds of years? Like sure conditions for serfs weren't great, but the transatlantic slave trade, the mass genocide of the americas, the subjugation of africa, india and china built the wealth of europe. You're trying to act like these two things are the same and they're not
lmao
seriously though:
Where's the lie? You guys think that's a good thing. Link to more info
They were abhorrent. You're really playing semantics here, conditions were essentially slave-like just as, say, Cuba under Batista.
No. Water power did, Europe has an absurd number of suitable streams for grain mills which allowed the creation of extensive trade, merchant, and scholar classes -- as they could be fed. Which led to technological superiority which led to the capacity to roll over other nations (and the presumption that it was the right thing to do). Without that pre-existing wealth all that colonising would not have been possible.
You're accusing me of condoning or advocating genocide?
You already told me to fuck off for pointing out that parts of Ukraine have been getting shelled by its own government for over 8 years, considering that response, yes that was my conclusion.
No. I told you to fuck off for this:
Yes, Ukraine has been shelling Russian positions in those regions for quite a while now.
Donetsk city has been routinely getting hit for years, it's why the SMO started
and again here you are cheerleading for indiscriminately killing civilians
A resounding no. The worst collateral damage happened under Poroshenko, one of the reasons why he lost against Zelenskyy.
People were calling for them to intervene immediately after the coup in 2014 and they didn't. Doesn't mean that wasn't still the reason for the intervention years later.
Ватник отъебись сказал мне не слушаешь урод
It was a coup though, what do you think it was?
A special electoral operation. Yanukovich reneged on election promises, people didn't like that and protested, he tried to turn Ukraine into a dictatorship, people liked that even less and protested even more, NATO sent... politicians, to negotiate compromises, protesters wanted to hear nothing about that, Yanukovich fled to his masters in Russia, got removed from office because AWOL, brief interim government, promptly followed by new elections which is how those kinds of iffy situations get solved in democracies.
You used the OSCE as a source previously, pray tell me what does the OSCE say about the following elections?
Yanukovich committed the worst crime: not wanting to take an IMF deal.
EU association agreement.
Noone gives a flying fuck about the IMF.
link for the curious ( I swear its not pig shit this time)
You're joking, right?
Noone gives a fuck whether the IMF gets what it wants or not. Not even the IMF in that case they simply don't give out money.
Also, the loan condition was about stopping to subsidise gas to be sold to consumers at below market price. Not sell off Anatonov or something.
Also the people have spoken. Pray tell, again, did you have a look at what the OSCE said about those elections? Seems to me like the Ukrainian electorate thought that the whole EU and not going bankrupt thing was worth paying realistic utility bills.
weird how when they don't get what they want there always seems to be some sort of intervention, financial or military against the offending party. Clearly there is no cause and effect that can ever be associated in the liberal mind.
Weird, so almost like there was an active war going on the whole time and the elections only reflected the most western-aligned people. Again, cause and effect are literally impossible to connect in the liberal mind.
Care to back that up with data? How does e.g. Argentine keep getting away with things?
And whose fault is that? Who prevented that people in occupied regions participated in the elections?
That's a very, very wrong take on the Ukrainian electorate. Both politically and I suppose geographically/ethically as the "people's republics" didn't at all cover Russian-speaking regions.
wtf are you talking about? link
They're already in debt hand getting pressured to do austerity, what do you even think is going on in the world?
I think the fault lies with the people who ignored any attempts at negotiation (minsk 1 and 2 peace agreements, and went on ramping up for a proxy war anyways)
There was a coup -> there is an active warzone in part of the country -> elections happen (so free and fair) -> The post coup elected government continues shelling the people living in the east anyways -> intervention happens
They're not doing austerity and yet getting their credit line renewed. Nor are they getting putsched.
Both broken by Russia(n backed forces). And exactly those forces also made sure that people can't vote.
this is being pressured to do austerity
Pretty sure the ceasefire violations were a 'both sides' thing, but for most of this fighting one side (Ukraine) has has a distinct advantage in terms of weaponry, considering the irregular forces.
The west was using those peace agreements to build up forces, Merkel literally admitted that on camera.
It was definitely the slavery
If it was slavery then why didn't Africa develop that quickly? They're the ones who sold the slaves!
Because they weren't the ones working the slaves to death in Caribbean plantations. Have you read any history?
Also there were plenty of indigenous slaves taken, whole generations worked to death in mines to send silver back to europe
No they did it in Africa.
go on
...for centuries if not millennia at quite low ROI and then Europeans came along with fancy ships and the capacity to conquer more fertile places earning quite a bit more dough per slave.
As said: The primary cause of Europe's wealth is early technological development, at scale, and in breadth, enabled because lots of food could be produced with comparatively small workforce.
colonizer apologia
Where, precisely, did I excuse that behaviour?
Really the reading comprehension among hexbears is at disappointing levels. Too much circle-jerking in isolation, I guess, rots the brain.
Yes, the europeans showed up to profit-maximize the slavery process. That was the technological innovation, the boats helped, but the main part of the equation was translating huge amounts of human suffering into money, and then re-investing it. You're hyping up Europeans technology up a little too much, chauvinists tend to. Europe was a plague-ridden backwater for centuries before they opted to sacrifice endless humans to Moloch. They "invented" all sorts of science to tell themselves it was the 'natural order'.
Based on how you're responding you do think this is a good thing though and are giving it positive spin.
I'm merely saying how things are, why Europe was in the position it was, why it has the edge it has. You know, material realism.
Yes, and that's why I point out that it's silly to say 'these are both colonial empires' when one has had two major changes in government since then, and affected far fewer people. Unless you're trying to be essentialist about Russians as colonizers or something it makes no sense.
Have you ever talked to, say, an Estonian? Muscovy colonised, the Russian Empire colonised, the USSR colonised, the Russian federation... tries to colonise.
Also you're the only one talking about the US, here. IDGAF categorise them as lizard people for all I care.
They're the other major party in the proxy war? The EU is a junior partner at this point.
There's plenty of examples of horrific British, French Spanish colonization, the Dutch are responsible for inventing the triangle trade of slaves to the Americas (with the profits going to Europe, hence triangle) in the first place. Some of those have actually had governments change since then too.
The US gets brought up because it's the global hegemon, driving so much of these political tensions. You don't get to pretend its blood-soaked record doesn't exist lmao.
A proxy war? Who is using Russia as a proxy? Words have meanings, you know. This is a war of conquest, and a very direct one at that. You can tell by how the aggressor has already legally (as in "Russian law", not "international law") incorporated parts of the defendant's territory into itself.
Also there's exactly two reasons why the US is in this: a) glee at Russia willingly running into another Afghanistan and b) because Europe is. The US can't countenance the impression that Europe does military things without it but if Trump were to be elected tomorrow and turned the country to isolationism European support for Ukraine would stand fast.
lmao, one sentence later. There's already plenty of precedent for unilateral secession, the EU made it clear it was okay with that when it was Serbia, why are you raising a stink now?
sounds like a proxy war to me, and if the US pulled out they would not have any ammunition, it's only viable because of US support right now.
Kosovo's secession wasn't unilateral, it was NATO-backed. Also, it followed a genocide I think I already told you that can't be arsed to go back and have a look at which hexbear I educated on that particular topic.
The US has stocks but they don't have production capacity. Well, at least not nearly enough.
It was not including voting from the rest of the country of Serbia, that's what unilateral means jfc. Also the west only 'cares' about muslim life when it's time to use them as an pretext for intervention they wanted to do anyways, same with how they suddenly care about uyghers now.
There were documented examples of Romani having to pretend to be kosovar albanians to flee the NATO bombing because there was no resources made available for any other minority ethnic group.
The whole NATO backed dismantling of yugoslavia was criminal
Yes I know, that's why they should stop getting Ukranians killed and pull all support.
Yes it was bad, still not as bad as chattel slavery, but pretty bad, that's why it was completely deserved when they had a revolution. Not sure why you keep bringing up the colonization of siberia like it's relevant to what's going on now though. Comparing the amount of human life lost in that to the conquest of Americas though is just silly- there's no comparison and the same American government is still around since then!
This isn't a "did the UK or Russia kill more natives" kind of discussion. This is a "Russia is a colonial empire" kind of discussion.
And yes of course fewer natives died in Siberia, it's fucking cold there there were never many in the first place.
They have had several government changes since then. The US has the same constitution since it was doing its shit, the one with slavery in it. (they only do it to prisoners now though, don't ask too many questions about why they have the highest prison population in the world)
Calling them a 'colonial empire' especially from the seat of the worlds largest and most brutal historical colonial empires is laughable. (1/3 of Africa has had a monetary policy run out of Paris to this day, I wonder why they're kicking them out)
You mean they've been fighting Russian backed separatists that were trying to join their regions with Russia
If they want to live under a totalitarian regime they were always free to move to Russia themselves
Ah yes the ever popular "they should have self deported instead of getting ethnically cleansed"
How come you guys were okay with kosovo 'voting' to leave Serbia, but suddenly this is a bridge too far?
The trick is they know zero specifics of either situation
You guys
Do you realize how sociopathic this sounds? Are all separatists deserving of being bombed by the country they live under? Would you say the same to the people of Yemen, or Palestine or Ethiopia? “You’re being bombed, so just leave”?
Depressingly for many libs the answer is yes because guy with blue tie was president and responsible for bombing them. Guy in red tie too but that's less relevant. Kosovo and Syria are better examples.
If they are trying to join Russia, yes. No need to pull their neighbours into that
But it's okay for neighbors to pull their neighbors into IMF debt servitude, to say nothing of couping the government because it wasn't pro-west enough. Really letting the euro chauvinism fly there.
Word for word right-wing talking point
Ok boomer
Upgrade your insults from the 2019 edition
Ok boomer
Careful not to let your MAGA hat fall when you yell at the clouds.
This is literally just "if you hate
americaukraine so much, go back to your own country!" repainted as a liberal viewpointShould the Bosnian Muslims just have gone back to their own country to avoid being murdered by right wing paramilitaries too?
Wait so you believe paramilitary groups were ethnically cleansing ethnic Russians in the Donbas in/pre 2014? Do you have any sources for this?
What does totalitarian mean?
Well for one example: if you pose a real political threat to the regime, you get thrown into prison or out of a window
How is that different than any functioning state?
What would happen to you if you started a tv show where you publicly talk about the crimes of your government? It might come as a shock but there are plenty of countries where you can do this without falling out of your window
Thinking "starting a TV show" = "pose a real political threat to the regime" is the most liberal brained thing I can imagine.
Ask Fred Hampton what happens to actual threats to the regime.
Sure that's one good example (although it's always a bit more risky if you're starting an armed self defense force). But you might just want to ponder a little bit on why you have to go back 50+ years for it.
I see. So are you going to follow this line of thought to it's natural conclusion and become an anarchist? /s
I guess you didn't pay attention. Whenever they post pictures of Ukrainian soldiers there's a good chance that you will see a Totenkopf or a Black Sun badge. When western news interviews lesser known Ukrainian politicians, there's a good chance that you will see a Bandera portrait in the background.
The rise of the ukrainian far right has been well documented in western media before the invasion. Hell, google "Western media before February of 2022"
In fact it's neither sovereign, since the US couped Ukraine in 2014, nor it is a democracy, but an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country. The contrast with Russia lies in the absence of a single pivotal leader like Putin, and they fully adhere to Western interests.
This doesn't make the invasion "good" as in "Aragorn is a good guy". The NATO encroaching makes it understandable. Which is completely different from "good". Understandable means that there is some kind of rationality at play. Which means it was probably preventable. Which means that some kind of solution is to be had. Hopefully...
spoiler
"Then came Russia’s invasion. Within months, many of these same institutions had plunged into an Orwellian stampede to persuade the West that Ukraine’s neo-Nazi regiment was suddenly not a problem.
It wasn’t pretty. In 2018, The Guardian had published an article titled “Neo-Nazi Groups Recruit Britons to Fight in Ukraine,” in which the Azov Regiment was called “a notorious Ukrainian fascist militia.” Indeed, as late as November 2020, The Guardian was calling Azov a “neo-Nazi extremist movement.”
But by February 2023, The Guardian was assuring readers that Azov’s fighters “are now leading the defence of Mariupol, insisting they have shed their previous dubious politics and rapidly becoming Ukrainian heroes.” The campaign believed to have recruited British far-right activists was now a thing of the past.
The BBC had been among the first to warn of Azov, criticizing Kyiv in 2014 for ignoring a group that “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.” A 2018 report noted Azov’s “well-established links to the far right.”
Shortly after Putin’s invasion, though, the BBC began to assert that although “to Russia, they are neo-Nazis and their origins lie in a neo-Nazi group,” the Azov Regiment was being “falsely portrayed as Nazi” by Moscow." link
Sorry but this is utter bollocks.
I see the cognitive dissonance is kicking in for you. Hopefully you will recover, and you'll read western mainstream narratives more critically.
How funny is this bit though?
"The BBC had been among the first to warn of Azov, criticizing Kyiv in 2014 for ignoring a group that “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.” A 2018 report noted Azov’s “well-established links to the far right.”
Shortly after Putin’s invasion, though, the BBC began to assert that although “to Russia, they are neo-Nazis and their origins lie in a neo-Nazi group,” the Azov Regiment was being “falsely portrayed as Nazi” by Moscow."
They suddenly became not-nazis in February 2022? But they kept the wolfsangel? Was BBC spouting Russian misinfo in 2014? Or was it a Russian time travelling double agent who wrote all those articles for prominent western papers about the concerning rise of neonazis in Ukraine? If they are so fringe, why are they giving them so much airtime?
Azov has been getting denazified ever since it became an official battalion. A huge number of Nazis left, regular people joined, are there still Nazis left? Probably, yes, but they're not running around with SS runes on their helmets that shit doesn't fly.
As far as the Wolfangel is concerned: It's not a clear Nazi symbol. Tons of German tows have it on their coat of arms.
Stop trying to rehabilitate the wolfsangel. If your town had it for three centuries then maybe that’s not nazi symbolism. If you join a nationalist right wing regiment and get it tattooed on yourself, that’s Nazi symbolism.
Think about it like the swastika. If someone is choosing it now, in Europe, in a right wing military organization, they’re nazis, not fans of Indian symbols and culture. Do you know how I can tell?
Removed by mod
oh no, not germanic cultutre appropriated by the nazis and wideley seen as dogwhistles! how will the world move on?
your'e absolutely right that the wolfsangel is like the number 88. maybe someone with it in a username or email was born or married that year. but when they're joining a nationalist right wing militia the number 88 means they're a nazi
we're not talking about random people on the street with tee shirts that have wolfsangels on em (btw they'd be nazis too). we're talking about people joining a famously right wing, nationalist militia in a country with a long history of nazism. they didn't pick those symbols out because they just love interesting history!
when people choose symbols associated with nazis now they're nazis. i'm sorry, that's just reality.
No, we're not talking about that. You are. All I said about the Wolfsangel is that it's not an unambigiously nazi symbol, which you just agreed to, the rest is you foaming at the mouth.
Yes, Azov at the beginning was a Nazi org, otherwise it would hardly had to have get denazified when getting rolled into official state structures, now would it. What's your fucking problem.
My problem is that we’re not talking about this in a vacuum. We aren’t having a nice little hypothetical conversation about weather or not you can judge the town of burgweldel for having a wolfsangel on their town coat of arms.
We are talking about people joining a right wing nationalist militia using the wolfsangel. In the context of this conversation it is unambiguously a Nazi dogwhistle and indefensible, unless you want to defend Nazis. Do you want to defend Nazis?
Again: Azovs at the beginning was a Nazi org. I never did say anything to the contrary. Yes they absolutely chose it because of its implications.
On the other side of the equation we have plenty of army insignia all over Europe using the Wolfsangel, both historically (pre-Nazi) and contemporarily -- it's a hunting weapon, after all, you shouldn't be more surprised to see it on military insignia than a sword or bow and arrow.
Should Azov have changed their logo? I do think so. But at the same time it's not valid to say "Because they still use the same symbol they're still Nazis".
Those other regiments aren’t on the other side of the equation because there is no equation. We’re not talking about the whole of semiotics throughout the history of europe, we’re talking about a specific nationalist right wing militia that uses Nazi symbols and ideas.
They chose a symbol to dogwhistle to everyone that they’re Nazis. Now they say they’re not Nazis but they kept the symbol that they chose to low key tell everyone me they’re Nazis.
Do you know what that means? it means they’re still nazis
This isn’t hard to understand. Theres no nuance here. They use the nazi markings knowing they’re nazi markings. They’re Nazis.
Yes.
No. For the simple reason that there's no sufficient personal or ideological continuation of "they". Vast swathes of Nazis left in the process of Azov becoming a regular brigade of the National Guard because they didn't want to be part of a government-controlled organisation out to de-nazify the thing, regular people joined. Also no further foreigners joined, those get sorted into the foreign legion, part of the army. National guard is run by the ministry of interior, not defence ministry.
The powers that be in the ministry of interior decided not to replace the logo. I have no insight as to their reasoning.
Okay, two different theys, the most recent being the ukranian government, whose decision to keep the name and logo you just can’t fathom.
Let me give a little insight into their reasoning: they want to keep the Nazi regiment.
If you bought a Nazi bar that had to close down because of all the Nazis and you wanted to reopen it as a bar, but without all the Nazis, would you keep the old name and leave the logo the same?
No, of course you wouldn’t. You’d change the name, clean house, completely renovate, change the menu, stop serving jagermiester and even take a strong anti fascist line.
Since the ukranian government didn’t do that it’s obvious they want to keep running the Nazi bar on the dl.
They wanted to keep the fighters who were willing to stay and not be Nazis. Changing the name is pointless it's named after the Azov Sea, and cleaning house can be done without changing the emblem, especially as it was only a Wolfsangel and not a Swastika. Had it been a Swastika I'd be 110% on your side but it isn't. As already said: Random people just don't associate the Wolfsangel with Nazis, you pretty much need to be a Nazi or Antifa to recognise it.
And since when is Jägermeister a Nazi drink. What's next, Berentzen Saurer Apfel?
Okay, hold on!
The original azov wolfsangel insignia was a Nazi dogwhistle (you agreed with this!), but a little churn and a change of management and the exact same name and insignia are somehow fine?
How does that work?
By people not considering the name and symbol tarnished enough to change? By not considering the symbol more important than the actual lived political practice (or rather lack thereof) in the regiment?
If the new management doesn’t consider at the very least the symbol chosen to appeal to Nazis tarnished enough to change when they take control of the Nazi militia then the new management are Nazis too.
If it was chosen to appeal to Nazis then by not changing it they’re choosing to continue appealing to Nazis!
Yet simultaneously they cracked down on Nazis. Sounds like a contradiction, doesn't it? That's because you're putting more meaning into the symbol than others.
Or, differently put: Why don't you stop arguing symbols and research how Azov troops think in 2023.
Ah yes, why don’t I ask people teaming under a Nazi banner what they think?
Because their Nazi banner tells me what they think! If they didn’t think that way they’d choose another banner!
Stop defending Nazis.
And it's a Nazi banner because... they're Nazis because they have a Nazi banner?
And no you don't have to actually talk to them. Plenty of information out there. If you want armed right-wingers to worry about in Ukraine then that'd be Right Sector.
you agreed that it was chosen to appeal to nazis. it's a nazi banner.
if you march under a nazi banner youre a nazi.
this isn't tough stuff. stop defending nazis.
If Nazis advertise with free pudding does that make all pudding eaters Nazis?
You're trying very hard to hold up a connection which is tenable at best. Also, stop fucking insulting people as Nazis for disagreeing with you. Have I expressed anything but disagreement with Nazis here, anywhere? I haven't for my whole fucking life. Touch grass.
I never called anyone disagreeing with me a Nazi. It’s worth noting though that a moderator of this very website called you a Nazi as their reason for removing your post equating the swastika and the unexpounded upon Germanic culture the Nazis appropriated.
Azov marches under a Nazi banner. We both know it’s a Nazi banner because we agreed it was chosen to dogwhistle to nazis. If someone marches under a Nazi banner, would you say they’re a Nazi? If not, what if they march under a Nazi banner for a state that banned all communist parties?
Azov is nazis. Stop defending nazis.
You're saying I'm defending them. To me that is no different than calling me one, which is a direct and severe insult. I mean I'm German I'm used to foreigners (especially Americans) throwing the term around with abandon, thereby trivialising it so I'm not really taking it personally but that still doesn't make it right for you to do. Or Antifa praxis: You're blunting a weapon.
Which website? I see nothing being removed here on my end. I also didn't equate the Swastika to anything, the thing I did was contrast the Wolfsangel to the Swastika. Explained why they're different.
Oh, just noticed, back to the actual Azov insignia: This is the original thing. When Azov became National Gurad it was replaced with this one. Notice what's missing? The pretty much only symbol that is 150% unambiguously Nazi, as in invented by them, not appropriated, not used elsewhere: The black sun. I was also incorrect previously, the Wolfsangel isn't Svoboda's Wolfsangel any more, the design differs.
You still haven't given an argument for that but "they use a symbol that also the Nazis used". They also eat bread, that's also a thing the Nazis did. To accuse someone of being a Nazi is an allegation which needs a bit more care than semiotic first impressions.
People can also wear Lonsdale without being Nazis. Even showing the "nsda" with an unzippered jacket. Shit tends to be complicated.
If you can actually provide a solid argument that Azov is Nazis I'll change my mind immediately.
okay, here's a solid argument: you can't display their banner in your home country because it's a nazi symbol.
you just tried to equate using a symbol with its own ADL page in a right wing nationalist millitia with eating bread.
do you see the absurdity of your position here?
I could, because it's not a Nazi symbol. It would be illegal to use the specific style used by the 2nd SS tank division as that is (as the rest of the SS) an organisation which got declared unconstitutional.
In a nutshell: The Wolfsangel is only forbidden if you're using it specifically to refer to a forbidden organisation. Unlike with other more recognisable symbols it's not immediately assumed that any use of them refers to such organisations. Which would be a problem as it's used in coat of arms, in forestry, whatever.
Which brings me to the next thing:
...no, it wasn't. If you want to go the way of German laws then tell me why the Azov regiment should be declared unconstitutional, then their symbol would be outlawed. Not the other way round.
You know what is illegal? Running around with a Z flag: Condoning of crimes, to wit, waging war of aggression.
Well, you’re definitely German.
Did you hear that guys? It’s cool, the Nazi militia is totally fine now because they changed the font of their wolfsangel and rotated it 90 degrees. Yeah, that makes them not Nazis. I know! It sounds weird but those are the rules, you can be an out Nazi organization but if you switch to comic sans and throw a little word art action in the mix you’re good.
Curious how you left out the disappearance of the black sun in your polemics.
We aren’t talking about the black sun.
We’re talking about how you will accept nazis using known hate symbol the wolfsangel when they change the font and rotate it 90 degrees.
You're still insisting that the current Azov is a bunch of Nazis and therefore the wolfsangel needs to be interpreted as a hate symbol and not neutral heraldry. However, you also base them being Nazis on them using the wolfsangel, unwilling (or unable) to bring up actual evidence of actual Nazi shit in today's Azov.
As I said in the comment that started this whole thread: Azov got denazified by the state. They went in, removed the black sun (hence why it's very much relevant), they cracked down on Nazi political expression in the regiment, and even before that tons of Nazis left because they didn't want to be part of a state organisation that would denazify them.
How can you ignore all that? And why that pin-point focus on Azov? There's other cases such as the unit now known as the 67th Mechanised, formerly right sector. They also kept the symbols of the Ukraine Volunteer Corps. (Though sword to knife and Kalashnikovs to some other assault rifle. Much better graphic design overall).
You already agreed that the Wolfsangel is not a Nazi symbol as such. If it needs to be avoided because Nazis used it, then the blade-and-rifle stuff also needs to be avoided. Tons of stuff needs to be avoided.
Lastly, another question: Do you have a moral issue with Nazis dying at the front.
I never agreed that the wolfsangel isn’t a Nazi symbol,I conceded that in some very rare circumstances it isn’t used that way and followed it immediately with the qualification that we aren’t talking about those circumstances.
The circumstances we are talking about are pretty much the textbook example of it being used as a Nazi dogwhistle. You acknowledged this. This isn’t one of the times where you can claim it’s like finding the wolfsangel in the crest of an old forester family. Simply bringing that up in this context is literally defending Nazis and I’d like you to stop doing that.
If a Nazi organization uses a symbol (any symbol) as a Nazi dogwhistle, and the government comes in, claims to have cleaned house but keeps the name and that symbol, do you not think that raises some red flags? Does it not make you consider the distinct possibility that they’re not doing a thorough job and just slapping a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon?
I’m not gonna pat the ukranian government on the back for removing the black sun, I’m gonna recognize the fact that they did that instead of completely removing all iconography associated with the Nazi regiment, dissolving it, investigating all people involved thoroughly and moving the men and material into other units or forming a new regiment with strict oversight and discipline and a command structure that’s entirely comprised of army personnel.
Because that’s how you “denazify” without incarcerating or killing the Nazis. Really, it’s how you integrate units that aren’t compatible with your force into yourself. The fact that the ukranian government thought it was enough to change the logo but keep the name and the wolfsangel communicates to anyone watching that they don’t see the Nazi regiment as incompatible with themselves, and they just want people in it to keep their heads down.
If you can stop defending Nazis for a second we can have a laugh at how the 67ths patch shows the profile of consumer grade donated ar-15 rifles with magpul flip up sights and everything. At least the volunteer corps is the iconography of irregulars (the rifles that were already around). When people try to blame everything on nato it’s important to remember that there are whole units whose existence is predicated on corporate sponsorship. Shits fucking grim.
Just for the record: It's not just some ancient thing you might find somewhere. It's in active use in German heraldry, family crests, insignia of hunter organisations, etc. It's a (by now outlawed because cruel) weapon to hunt wolves and foxes. Literally means "wolf rod", "rod" here in the sense of fishing rod, one side of it would be hung up in a tree, while the part with barbs was equipped with a lure. Have a picture of a reconstruction (just the steel, not the gruesome details).
Semiotically I'd say it's connected to protection, feistiness, because wolves scary monsters and shit (which really isn't the case but that's another can of worms). But consider your run of the mill peasant seeing that thing in a noble crest or such and saying "yep they're keeping us safe".
Every German one, two, and five cent coin has oak leaves on it. Same for the D-Mark. Germany is the successor state of Nazi Germany. The SS used oak leaves in insignia. Is the Bundesbank a Nazi organisation? Germany as a whole?
I have no reason to believe they weren't thorough. Have you? Aside from assuming they weren't thorough by not getting rid of the Wolfsangel. These kinds of insignia aren't just changed will-nilly, there were a significant number of non-Nazis already in Azov who might've liked it, it is not considered to be a Nazi symbol in public Ukrainian perception (though it's not a common heraldic theme, either, it's simply "some fancy shape"). They did get rid of the black sun, that one is plain and simply indefensible.
Ukraine is at war. By pulling regiments apart and reconstituting them you severely fuck with their fighting efficiency: Effective operations require trust in your comrades, requires knowing your comrades, how they will react in what situation, it requires prolonged periods of joint training.
In peace times, sure, that'd be the right thing to do. But Ukraine doesn't have that luxury. Azov has been fighting Russian invaders since 2014, without pause. For quite a while it was the only regiment really fighting because the Ukrainian army was in complete shambles thanks to hybrid Russian warfare fucking with it. You don't just dissolve your most experienced force while they're keeping the enemy from running you over.
...it's not an army unit, but paramilitary police.
The biggest indicator for me, really, of the denazification working is swathes of Nazis simply packing their stuff and leaving. Why the fuck would they have done that if they had buddies in the interior ministry "only removing the black sun but turning a blind eye to the rest"?
I’m just gonna get it out of the way up front: equating oak leaves and a symbol with, once again, its own ADL entry and many pictures of Nazis using it in tattoos, emblems and patches is absurd and can only be interpreted as providing cover and defense for nazis. Stop defending nazis.
I do have reason to believe they’re just throwing a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon: they’re at war and they want command and control of the Nazi regiment!
You said it yourself, they didn’t do the right thing because they want the Nazis fighting for them.
They didn’t denazify anything and we can both look and see by the symbols and name they used!
I keep bringing up those examples because you don't seem to get the point that the thing is not a Swastika. But let me come up with another example, and as the ADL is not really the best source here let's take the actual authority on the matter, the Bundesverfassungsschutz. Page 26, section 2.13, the Freiheitliche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, featuring its abbreviation "FAP" (sic) inside a cogwheel.
Does that mean that users of the Rust programming logo are now Nazis because letter in cogwheel?
And I can already anticipate the objection: The Rust community didn't start out as a Nazi org. But then on the flipside Azov got denazified. If Rust did start out as a Nazi org, would we have to get rid of the cogwheel? Or does it get a pass because you can see it used in, among other places, socialist emblems?
I didn't say that. In peace times it would have been the right thing, but Ukraine isn't at peace, and not dissolving the regiment is necessitated by the war whether the reformed Azov ended up with 80% or 20% Nazis. (According to the Ukrainian state is was something like 20%, and not the really hardcore ones. Presumably also includes Strasserites and all kinds of stuff).
Then why go through (enough) denazification to have swathes of Nazis leave?
Also, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with Nazis dying on the front. I fundamentally oppose them running through the streets intimidating people or worse, I oppose them in any legislative capacity, but I don't mind them holding back an invader. What's there to loose? They survive and we're not worse off than before, they die, well, then that's that.
Or, put differently: Would you support sending them to the front as a penalty battalion?
Bonus: The Verfassungschutz pdf, page 38, section 2.35. The fuckers appropriated the Antifa flags of all things. If you simply outlaw everything they're using and everything that looks like something they're using they're going to appropriate absolutely everything to deny it to us. I wonder if the ADL will copy that one into their list, they're not always known for having the best of takes.
And while I'm at it, page 82, translated:
1982. It took the symbol that long to even land on the list, presumably because only then did Nazis stumble across it while looking through SS division logos.
You hear that everybody? The Nazi regiment can keep using their hate symbol! Yeah, because they denazified. How can we tell they denazified? They said so. Those are the rules. Who made the rules? The Germans, why? No we can’t trust the ADL. Who says? A German. No, they’re not on one of the .de instances, why?
If it was Azov which said it I wouldn't even begin to trust it. But it wasn't Azov it was Ukrainian state structures.
Because we know where that shit leads and are on top of it. To be on top of it, we actually understand it and don't simply play symbol association games.
That's rather harsh. But they have had quite some blunders in the past. Heart in the right place but actionist kind of stuff.
Civis europaeus sum.
So you trust the ukranian state not to be fascist so much that you’ll take their word that there aren’t any Nazis over their actions of leaving the dogwhistle symbol and very well known name.
That’s going way beyond gullible, but if you’re willing to look past the ukranian states’ past actions and take it at its word who am I to judge? I mean, as a German you definitely have plenty of success and skill in recognizing Nazis and keeping them out of power: just look at nato and the frg of olde and afd etc today! Clearly Germans can recognize Nazis and effectively keep them out of power! What was I thinking suggesting that a German was being pedantic and providing a smokescreen for Nazis? There’s no systemic historical precedent for that!
Stop defending Nazis.
They never claimed that, the estimation was that about 20% of post-denazification Azov troops had an extreme right wing world view.
What. You might mean the CIA, the Regan administration was straight-up fash.
Yeah we had an autumn about that one.
You mean the party 47% want straight outlawed? You know what's even more interesting? 10% of AfD voters want to outlaw it!
2/3rds of their poll results are protest voters not sharing their ideology and due to those 10% I think we can be sure that many of those are just doing it in opinion polls, and won't actually cast ballots for them. Those protest votes are by and large from the east which has a significantly lower precentage of people with closed right-wing world-views than the west.
Certainly brought the whole "the east still has shit political representation" issue back into focus, though OTOH I just have to be a besserwessi and say that noone is fucking stopping them from representing themselves.
Oh, another tidbit: Many AfD voters are on welfare. The AfD implementing their stated policy would move wealth from that group to voters of other parties, so much so normal, but they on top of that want to disenfranchise then, tie voting rights to paying tax. If you're into psychoanalysis and its recognition of forces such as Nazis as catabolic that's like chef's kiss, the fuckers even want to eat themselves.
Also if you dislike the AfD so much why are you joining their ranks by endorsing Russian propaganda?
In any case: Azov is not a German battalion. Have a look at where Svoboda polls. Go over to youtube and watch some Dylan Burns, the man is gay and on the ground there.
Stop being an actionist and base your decisions on data and analysis. How you analyse I don't really care, come up with your own yardsticks but do triple down on applying them thoroughly and consistently.
Oh it’s only 1/5 Nazis! In that case they get to use the wolfsangel but they can’t use the totenkopf until they hit 1/8.
This is absurd. They were Nazis, they used a symbol to appeal to Nazis. The name became synonymous with Nazis. Now the claim is they’re only 1/5 Nazis but it’s okay to use the same symbol and name.
At this point what would convince you? If their marches included the Bellamy salute? If they brought the black sun back?
You’re either so naive you can’t recognize the “new look, same great taste” strategy or you’re defending Nazis. I’ve been assuming the latter because the former is both sad and frightening.
Unsupervised Nazis would do exactly that, yes. They don't, so their number is either diluted to a degree where they don't have cultural impact (Azov grew significantly after that 20% number) and/or the inerior ministry is keeping a lid on things by cracking down on Nazis who do Nazi things.
And I mean this is what it's about, isn't it? Whether those Nazis do Nazi things. If they're Nazis and don't do Nazi things but instead risk their neck defending the country, why the fuck would anyone be opposed.
In that vein:
I think it's you who's protecting Nazis by insisting that they stay away from Russian soldiers. Why do you worry so much about their safety?
Oh so if they’re good Nazis it’s okay!
I see now why you’re defending them, you think it’s okay!
Stop defending Nazis!
No, they're bad Nazis, obviously, as all Nazis are bad. But currently they're engaged in an activity which is beneficial.
Why are you protecting Nazis from dying at the front? Why are you so worried about their well-being? Stop protecting Nazis!
Oh so you’re defending specifically the nazis fighting Russia.
Interesting stance for a German to take. 🤔
You can, as always, stop defending Nazis.
I'm also in favour of sending the proud boys to the front in case of Canada invading the US. Really, any defensive situation.
Making them fight defensive wars is the only sensible use a society can make of fascists. In more senses than one.
You’d have a good point if the ukranian state was doing some kind of gloryless Suicide charge with them. Based on all they’ve said they’re integrating the Nazi militia into the state to fight alongside normal people and become war heroes.
Stop finding excuses to defend Nazis.
If you'd send them only on suicide missions they wouldn't cooperate. Still, each Nazi on the front is one non-Nazi not needed at the front.
As to heroes: Needs must. In Germany we're nuking Nazis in the military from orbit, we're also disallowing Nazis from fighting in Ukraine's foreign legions, because we don't want to have Nazis skilled in combat. That, however, is a secondary concern when you've got Russia invading you.
As to heroes the second: The likes of right sector are very unpopular, politically speaking, in Ukraine. There's plenty of non-Nazi war heroes -- another reason to not have Nazis fight alone, so that there's no valour that they can earn alone. They won't be able to capitalise on having fought.
See this is why I keep pushing you.
Germany would never do what the ukranian state is doing, but they need every fighting man. Never mind the fact that ukranian doctrine has been combined arms warfare with relatively small numbers of soldiers so they’re not actually in a situation where numbers are a huge benefit.
The naziism is a serious problem and it’s good that azov “denazified” but also they’re not popular and it’s no big deal.
They can’t capitalize on having fought and aren’t gaining any standing, but azov was being lauded in the press as defenders of Mariupol.
You’re just saying whatever let’s you keep defending the Nazis.
Now it could be that you want to defend the ukranian state, but you don’t need to rush to its side every time. It can be making grave mistakes and doing the wrong thing by any measure and still be a state you support. Just don’t support the Nazis, that’s all I ask.
Take a page from the communists and limit yourself to critical support.
Take a page from Antifa and not call a huge organisation Nazi because there's a couple of Nazis in there.
My main issue, here, from the beginning, has been you trivialising the term. You still do it, without reflection, in an attempt to win an argument on the internet. As if it was some two-sided partisan US politics or such.
Take that same exact page and recognize that if there’s ten liberals at the table with a Nazi there’s eleven Nazis at the table.
An organization that accepts Nazis is a Nazi organization.
I’m not trivializing the fact that the ukranian state actively welcomes Nazis. I’m responding appropriately with revulsion and disdain.
To the extent that there is any path to peace that leaves Donetsk and Luhansk in the control of the ukranian state, it does not hinge on accepting and welcoming Nazis.
If the state is doing so, it’s not out of necessity, but alignment.
There is no argument to be won here. Anyone reading this thread of comments will wonder why it’s so important that Nazis are accepted. I’m recommending you, as a person who ought to be familiar with the insidious nature of fascism, stop defending Nazis.
So then you're ready to call Russia a Nazi state over fielding a fuckton of fascist regiments? Have a look at Utkin's tattoos. Everyone in Russia knew, noone higher up cared.
They’re both liberal fascist states. One was put in place by nato after they realized they couldn’t just carve it up, the other was put in place by nato to oppose the first when they denied it membership.
Stop deflecting and trying to place me in support or opposition to the members of this absolutely avoidable conflict and most importantly: stop defending nazis.
Oh my sides I dare you to say that in Russia. Bring a stopwatch so you can time how long it takes for you to arrive in a prison camp in Siberia. The FSB doesn't suffer that kind of talk, "Russia is controlled by its enemies" (from their POV. In reality Russia has exactly one enemy: Itself).
Absolutely avoidable, true: Russia could stop being imperialist and, for a change, and harkening back to Lenin's times, focus on developing itself. Like Ukraine did. Which is why the Siloviki in Russia can't have that happen, it sets a bad precedent for a culturally related people to gets its shit in order, people actually getting what they want, being better off, all that kind of stuff.
Okay first things first, I never said Russia was controlled by its enemies, second:
This isn’t about my views on geopolitics, it’s about ohs you need to stop defending Nazis. Do that and we can have a wide ranging conversation about any number of topics.
But first, stop defending Nazis!
Explain that to the FSB officer.
I never defended Nazis, and you have yet to make an argument that doesn't bog down to "I hate that /u/barsoap is right about symbols". It's you who's trivialising the term.
I’m not trivializing anything.
You are saying that azov battalion using the wolfsangel is not a nazi symbol.
It’s a defense of Nazis because you’re providing cover for the spread of their ideology. You need to stop defending Nazis.
Ok you've got me. Now show me where Azov is spreading Nazi ideology. Post-2015. I'm waiting.
What would you call wearing and waving a Nazi symbol?
Stop defending Nazis!
It's not a Nazi symbol. Are Motorhead fans Nazis because they wear Iron Crosses?
What’s not a Nazi symbol, the wolfsangel (which you agreed was a Nazi symbol in the context of a right wing militia just a few days ago) or the black sun (whose removal you claimed was semiotic denazification enough)?
Instead of making me dredge up terrible things you’ve said, why not just stop defending Nazis?
Azov isn't a Nazi org any more, thus the Wolfsangel is fine. Because there was more than semiotic denazification. You also can't be publicly/actively racist or homophobic and whatever inside Azov Ukraine really cracked down on associated politics as a whole. As said: If Azov was still a Nazi org, why did so many Nazis leave?
And are you seriously asking whether the black sun is a Nazi symbol. The SS used it in an esoteric context, the only other use I'm aware of is use esotericists using it as a specific symbol of evil, "a nightmare that feels like paradise while you're asleep", but that's an obscure corner of an obscure corner. Also, based as fuck.
Of course I’m not asking. I’m responding to your assertion that after 2015 azov wasn’t spreading nazism. They clearly were both incubating and spreading it during that time. I chose the example most apropos to our discussion and brought up their semiotics. You said it (without specification) wasn’t a nazi symbol and I asked which of the two nazi symbols wasn’t one.
So, stop providing cover for the spread of Nazism. Stop defending Nazis.
Now how many Nazis can a group have before the wolfsangel is a problem? We agree that Nazis use it as a dogwhistle, we agree that in the context of a far right militia it’s clearly Nazi imagery. Is it half? If your group is half Nazis you get a pass? One quarter? One singular Nazi? I’d argue that since the context is a far right militia that just fucking last year claimed to have “denazified” the number is zero. You can’t use the same imagery you used last year to appeal to Nazis and credibly claim that it’s different now.
I say that because I’m not gullible and I don’t defend Nazis.
The only sensible use a society can make of nazis is as catapult ammunition. You DO NOT, under any circumstances, want to give fascists actual combat training and military action. That's how you get Freikorps after the war. Why would you want that?
Because read a bit more into the thread I addressed that. Right-wing bullshit is politically rather less popular in Ukraine than it was in WWI-era Germany. Context matters.
yeah mate, germany is really on top of the neo-nazi problem, that's why they only disbanded the (most) nazi ksk unit after they were blindingly obvious about it
Read further down in the thread for stuff on the AfD situation. As to the KSK: Most armies wouldn't even notice.
Surely you can't be this gullible
oh, okay, good talk
I don't know what you think I'm trying to justify. You said:
I explained that the 'hard left' has been concerned about Nazis in Ukraine for a long time. You can understand that communists are going to keep a close eye on countries that ban communist parties. Yes other places have a far right problem too. Communists keep an eye on reactionaries elsewhere as well but it's hardly germane to a conversation about the circumstances of a war in Ukraine, is it?
It's not the historical "concern", it's the constant parroting of Russian talking points by useful idiots on the far left. "Oh look at these Nazis [showing picture from 2014]", meanwhile Ukraine is actually a pluralist democracy and has a professional / conscript army fighting an invasion. They're not Nazis in aggregate or even substantially. It's sort of shit I'm obviously referring to.
Pluralist democracy is when you seize power through force and then ban opposition parties.
"Seize power by force and other things that only happened in my imagination"
Sometimes I forget just how little y'all know about the history of this conflict.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/17/ukraine-bans-communist-party-separatism
The pictures I'm taking about have been taken and shared since the invasion. This is not 'historical' in the sense of pre-dating the invasion.
In any event, if the people you're talking to are discussing reasons for the invasion, the salient facts are the ones that pre-date the invasion. Nobody had the benefit of being able to see facts or pictures taken after the invasion before it occurred; these newer details could not have factored into the equation beforehand. Which may explain (I have no idea because you're talking in the abstract and not providing receipts) why people would bring up the (highly relevant) historical context.
Ukraine is under martial law. Eleven opposition parties have been suspended. The communist party was banned and it's assets seized. This is not what democracy looks like. It is in no way pluralist. Maybe you have a different definition of pluralist democracy than I do.
Will things improve after the war? It's hard to say now but considering that Ukraine went after the communist party eight or more years ago, it's unlikely. The fate of 'pro-Russian' parties depends on who wins the war. They'll either be demonised or praised for being 'right all along'. You can guess how the narrative will be rewritten, either way.
Unfortunately, the aftermath of this war will be terrible for years. That outlook is even bleaker if Ukraine loses with any kind of quasi-military intact. They are now even more heavily armed than before, they will be pissed at losing, and they will be more battle hardened than ever. So even if Russia wins, the political landscape will look different throughout the region, but it's unlikely to become a pluralist democracy. (Please notice the 'ifs' in this paragraph, I have made no prediction as to who will 'win'.)
You can refer to whatever you like. You are imputing motive on people for saying things you don't like. That does not mean that the imputed motive is the real motive. Some people have a more nuanced take on the war than you are willing to accept. Having a nuanced understanding of a complicated issue requires an understanding of as many factors as possible.
Looking at a process (e.g. war) in all its relations (internal, historical, political economic, to start with) is the basic Marxist approach and yet is alien to the liberal/bourgeois approach, so I understand if this is unfamiliar to you. If you want to see whether communists do this kind of thing with any other topic (it's literally every topic) please pick up almost any Marxist text. Marx's 'Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte' is a good example of this 'historical materialism'.
I don't want to impute motive to you, so I'll just say that I don't understand why you're trying so hard to erase or apologise for the fact that Ukraine had and has a Nazi problem. Nobody that I know of is claiming that the Nazis are in control of every state civil or military organ. Usually, the claim is that the yanks funded anti-Russian, pro-west separatists and the Nazi militias to provoke Russia. Read that how you will.
I couldn't disagree more. In this thread I have someone telling me Ukraine is currently pushing Russia back despite the front not moving appreciably for nearly a year now. It's also common to hear Putin described as a mustache-twirling villain who just woke up one day and said "I will conquer the whole of Ukraine in three days," a take similarly detached from reality.
You do realize that in order to minimize (working class) casualties some kind of peace deal needs to be signed? And in order to sign a peace deal first there needs to be a ceasefire? The sooner the ceasefire starts, the better.
Are you saying that western politicians torpedoing any kind of truce and/or peace deal is "Russian misinfo"?
spoiler
Should we ignore the significant human and economic costs of the ongoing war and the support for the military-industrial complex? Why? Is this some kind of noble war against Sauron or what?
Yeah no-one is against a peace deal at this point. Just against the one where you let they totalitarian agressor win. Anyone who knows anything about history knows you have to stop those kind of regimes at the earliest possible moment.
Russia has won, though. They have taken the separatist parts of Ukraine and cannot be removed. So the choices are:
Here's the kicker: Assuming Russia is willing to negotiate a deal, would it honor that deal? It did, after all, guarantee security in exchange for Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear weapons, and it broke that commitment.
Ukraine has very good reason to believe that Russia would only use a deal to stop the war as an opportunity to build its strength for another invasion, later. There's strong evidence that it's not the capture of separatist territories that is Putin's goal, but the denial of Ukrainian as a distinct cultural identity, and to prevent it from aligning culturally with the West (even leaving aside the issue of NATO).
If you think the enemy won't honor a deal, and won't stop its aggression long-term—and Ukranian leadership has said that that's exactly what they believe loudly and often—what's the incentive to negotiate for a ceasefire?
On your first point: Russia's argument for why they have gone back on the security exchange for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament is one of the very same arguments NATO uses when claiming that they never promised russia that they wouldn't expand NATO east of Germany... The US either lies, and denies making the promise (they did) or they say that they promised the soviet union, which is not the same thing as Russia. Ukraine had a discontinuity in government in 2014: this is something they and the EU acknowledged officially during Ukraine's application to join the EU... So idk if the government of Ukraine today is a distinct entity from the political formation in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union, but that is what Ukraine and the EU have said as much.
Your first point in your second paragraph is something that could be said of Ukraine/NATO just as well. If anything, Ukraine has completely expended its reserve of weapons and now relies on a dwindling supply of old weapons from NATO... it may have just gone through a 3rd army in this last offensive... if anything a peace agreement would give NATO more time to arm Ukraine for another time when they decide to break the peace agreement... This isn't based on speculation or a belief that Ukrainians are dishonest (unlike most speculation about Russia) because this is exactly what Angela Merkle said Minsk I & II were for: to use a peace deal to give NATO time to arm Ukraine for war... In order for peace to be achieved, both sides are going to have to accept some sort of good faith. If that can't be done then more people will continue to have their lives thrown away.
I’ve been following the history of the breakup of the Soviet Union, and NATO’s involvement for decades, so I hear what you’re saying. I just think it’s irrelevant to the prospect of peace talks now. Ukraine now has a people and government who do not want to be part Russia. Whatever good reasons Putin feels he had to launch a pre-emptive invasion are irrelevant. Dubya thought he had a good reason to attack Iraq. I called that, and him, evil. I’m applying the same standards to Putin: The other side’s bad behavior does not excuse his response.
Ukraine is now facing invasion by an enemy that’s made it clear by its actions and rhetoric that the goal is cultural extinction of Ukraine, that’s proved itself faithless in past agreements (whatever its internal reasoning), and that shows no sign of willingness to negotiate. They have the support of the West now; who knows about the future? What is their incentive to sue for peace?
(Withdrawing Western support from Ukraine now to force them to the negotiating table has a high likelihood of resulting in a genocide, given the evidence. The thing that might bring Putin to the negotiation table for actual peace at this point is threats backed more directly by Europe and NATO, and that seems like bad news.)
That is your prerogative to doubt, but as for my understanding, not only has Putin himself said explicitly that there is no Ukrainian identity, but that motive best explains Russian military actions. Other possible motives, e.g. countering NATO or protecting civilians in separatist regions, don’t hold up under critical analysis. (Assuming that Putin is a rational actor.)
If you want an explanation for Russia's military actions that makes sense, read the article from the Marine Corps Gazette in this comment. Unfortunately I can't find a PDF link.
They could not be removed from Afganistan either. Until they were.
Ukraine can grind up Russian conscripts and free their country inch by inch if they have to.
Meanwhile the rest of the world can help continuing to destroy the Russian economy as best as we can
The Soviets weren't removed from Afghanistan any more than we were -- they left because they lacked popular support and kept taking losses (because we were arming terrorists who would go on to do 9/11, but I'm sure that type of blowback won't come from arming Ukranian neo-Nazis!). The parts of Ukraine Russia is occupying largely wanted to leave Ukraine before the war even started. It's not the same scenario.
Even your best case scenario is "fight a bloody stalemate until one side runs out of troops," which is incredibly destructive to Ukraine even if they win, and of course they won't, because the smaller country that can't just sit back behind extensive defenses isn't going to win a bloody stalemate.
The soviets lost the popular support they had in parts of Afghanistan after 10 years of war. They never 'ran out of troops'.
The US never 'ran of troops' in Vietnam.
Great, call a ceasefire now.
So you are against a peace deal? You do know that the fabled ukrainian counteroffensive has failed completely? How many more regular ukrainians should die in hopeless counteroffensives?
Btw it seems like you don't know what totalitarian means. Actual academic historians tend to avoid this term since the seventies.
The Ukrainians are the ones who can decide if and when they want to surrender. They are gaining ground every day and have all the time they want to kill as many invaders as they want. Let's see how many men, women and money Putin is prepared to waste before he eventually retreats, Afhganistan style
I'm sorry, are you the same person I've been talking to? Because it seems like you haven't actually read anything I've written.
Western politicians actively sabotaged peace talks. Read previous comments for sources.
This has no basis in reality. Even overly optimistic western sources have admitted the failure of the spring counteroffensive.
How can you be this wrong? They have limited manpower and more and more soldiers die every day. Every week spent warring is a huge burden on their economy.
I'm not gonna answer you again since you are completely out of touch with reality. Even prowar western journalists are more careful with their wording.
Bad argument
You do realise that a peace deal / ceasefire which involves Ukraine giving up land, sovereignty or anything else is horseshit being pushed around by useful idiots? And who is feeding the far left with this crap? Russia because of course they are. And you only have to look at prior deals by Russia to see how believable any peace would be do. Or ask Yevgeny Prigozhin how deals work.
The counteroffensive failed spectacularly, even western sources admit this.
How many more people you want to send in the meat grinder?
Here's an idea: call a ceasefire and let the diplomats negotiate, and let's see what happens. Let's see what actual ukrainians want after a few months of negotiation. Maybe Boris Johnson should fuck off. At least people are not dying until then. Outlandish, I know.
Now this is qanon level conspiracy theory. I am against war between capitalist nations in general. On one side you have an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country, and on the other side you have an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country.
Since I live in a NATO country I criticise NATO more, since they are the ruling class above me and there's enough criticism of Putin around here anyway.
As far as deals go, US/Ukraine isn't trustworthy either. The Minsk agreement was bullshit. What happened to nord stream btw?
It seems they also have a tendency to consider NATO as cartoons villains. Also, tankies are not the average lefties, they are at the extreme of the left.
deleted by creator
Thank you for confirming.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Wait so are tankies anti-NATO? All leftists are anti-NATO lmao
gaddafi was sodomized to death with a knife. i can hardly think of a more cartoonishly evil organization.
Was that decided by NATO?
You're saying that the NATO bombings and the NATO-backed rebels had nothing to do with it..? He was fleeing a NATO air strike.
Nope, you're shifting the subject, you were talking about how he died precisely.
The bombs he was fleeing from were decided by NATO, the militias were funded and supported by NATO; the same one that eventually found him and sodomized him to death with a bayonet. What will be evidence enough for you? Hillary's "we came, we saw, he died." quip?
lmao this is like saying if I push someone off a cliff, I'm actually innocent because the ground killed them.
Yes. Gaddafi was also certainly killed based on French intelligence, and there is substantial evidence that the men who assassinated him were French assets. Part of the reason, apart from the broader geopolitical aim of annihilating a country which wanted to engage in the construction of international monetary and commerical systems outside of the orbit and control of the American petro-dollar, Gaddafi had essentially bribed Sarkozy at a certain point and was holding this over the latter's head (Sarkozy is infamously corrupt). See:
Hegemon's have to rule by fear. Read any bloodsoaked page from the history of the Roman Empire. Fear is best instilled through unimaginable atrocity. What do you think the rulers of the rest of Africa and the Middle East thought after they saw how Gaddafi, head of the most prosperous (per-capita, quality of life, standard of living, etc.) state in Africa, ended up?
"Cartoon villain" here means "a villain who is just intrinsically evil and does evil things as a result." Contrast this with real people, who generally have material or ideological motivational for the actions they take.
The left views NATO as evil not because it's full of cartoon villains, but because it is an organization that consciously, due to material and ideological motivations, chooses to immiserate the global south for the benefit of its constituent countries' ruling classes.
Define tankie
I use it similarly to what is described in this Wikipedia article, in particular the last paragraph of the introduction is what disturbs me the most with some Lemmy users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
Lmao who tf is
deleted by creator
The last paragraph quotes fucking Ross Douthat, come on now
Lots of terms need defining. "Illiberal" just means not capitalistic, which yeah that's all leftists. What is authoritarian? Usually a definition that gets thrown around applies more to capitalist countries vs those listed.
So it's just a western communist that supports non Western communist projects? 🤔
I love it when liberals use 'illiberal' as a criticism. Begging the question much? Of course we're illiberal we're anti-capitalists!
Don't whisper it in hushed tones as if we're being shy about it and might be embarrassed. Liberalism is the cause of so much misery in the world I'd be more embarrassed to be called a liberal.
The best of it is that even liberals accept that liberal society is atrocious; they just throw up their hands, claim that it's the only option, and benefit decadently from the system while the world burns as if nothing could or should be done about it. The nerve.
someone who uses tankie is almost always someone who claims to be a socialist but has not read marx
20 yards of linen, now put down the knife before someone gets buttered
It's essentially cope for them not just supporting "nominally" socialist countries because their stance is one of anti-imperialism. Iran should have nukes.
Isn't Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the Russo-Georgian war imperialism? I still don't get them, except being blinded by their hate of USA's war crimes, which I can understand, but it still seems like an irrational conclusion to become a tankie. They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.
Wait, are you saying Saakashvili has done an imperialism? Because even western/EU reports have confirmed that Georgia started that war, not Russia.
"From 24 February 2022, which marked the start of the large-scale armed attack by the Russian Federation, to 30 July 2023, OHCHR recorded 26,015 civilian casualties in the country: 9,369 killed and 16,646 injured"
Almost 10 thousand civilians killed is horrible. But compare this to Iraq: it's less than the first month of the war in Iraq, and no US politicians was tried for war crimes. Maybe you should ponder this factoid.
If you live in a NATO country maybe you should demand Blair and Bush to be tried for their war crimes. If you live in the west you should spend more energy of criticizing the ruling class above you.
"supporting or refusing to criticize" This is a made up leftist. Per definition there is no leftist that uncritically supports a right wing capitalist country.
Marxists, following Lenin, define imperialism as the monopoly of finance capital. Not as a synonym for 'conquest', 'annexation', 'empire' (not that I'm saying all three necessarily apply to Russia in Ukraine—a conclusion on that isn't relevant, here).
When US (Anglo-European) finance capital dominates the world through the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and petrodollar, supported by a network of however many hundreds of military bases, all paid for by it's vassals and enemies due to said dominance, there's little to no room for anyone else to even consider being imperialist.
We can discuss that if you like. I'll likely need others to chip in. I'm not proposing that I have all the answers. It's not something with a clear answer. But we can't have the debate at all unless we agree on common definitions and frames of reference. Otherwise it feels as though liberals simply do not understand what's being said. It's just talking past one another, where one side has a coherent definition and framework and the other side… doesn't.
I'll let you decide whether you can honestly say you have a theoretically sound concept of imperialism depending on how much dedicated literature on imperialism you've read.
Yeah it's important that we, as Marxists, therefore proceeding scientific,ally, make very clear from the onset as to what we mean when we use the term 'imperialist' with this more specific, narrow, Leninist definition which only really applies to modern capitalism, or more precisely the modern capitalist world-system. Conceptual clarification is essential for any scientific endeavor, including Marxism.
Even on this definition however, we can note that it is perfectly possible (and concretely, empirically, historically confirm this possibility by looking at the international situation pre-WW1) that there be several powers or polarized groups of powers each of which behaves imperialistically in the Leninist sense. The difference today is that we currently still have a more or less unipolar as opposed to multipolar imperialist (Leninist sense) world-system.
If someone calls Russia 'imperialist' in a different sense, then they might not be wrong, and saying that they are because our definition doesn't apply isn't relevant beyond the fact that there's confusion over the concepts being used because people are equivocating between them, simply because we are using the same term/sound/word/signifier. If we do the latter we are engaging in a semantic debate disguised as, because confused with, a substantive debate.
Good points. I also wouldn't be opposed to accepting that capitalists in Russia would/will try to become imperialistic in the monopoly of finance capital sense. In the one hand, the logic of capital might force their hand. On the other hand, capitalists are gonna capitalist, in part because they fetishise the hoarding of wealth like everyone else living under capitalism.
Whether Russian imperialism becomes a realistic possibility, though… I'd be interested in seeing some stats on that, interpreted in light of the idea that the next type of multipolarity will be quite different to the one at the turn of the twentieth century. Ig if anyone's done that leg work it'd be Michael Hudson but I've not come across it if he has.
There's a concept called "critical support", which most "tankies" are practicing. You have criticism of a side but its the lesser evil so you support it despite your criticism. You won't hear much of that criticism publicly though because that's counterproductive.
Like if I want the US to recognize the DPRK as a sovereign state so we can at least begin discussing Korean reunification, why would I bother mentioning my criticism of Juche?
I would avoid saying "lesser evil" for critical support cases, because revolutionary defeatism exists for lesser evil situations where nothing is progressing against the primary contradiction. It's more a recognition that a shitty thing can be progressive/forward moving relative to its opposition. Russia winning/getting a peace deal with Donbas and Crimea out of Ukraine gets us much closer to ending global imperialism than Ukraine getting it's land back or worse.
We want the larger capitalist empire to loose to the smaller capitalist empire because that leads to better outcomes. Saying otherwise is telling half truths at best.
No. Both are bourgeois states and yes I prefer the weaker one winning in this case, but the framing of "big vs small" is very ignorant of any reason to support something critically
Please elaborate because as far as I see you just dont like that framing because you think its counter productive messaging, not because its wrong.
Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now, but it's in no way a defining feature. Sure, I'm absolutely fine with that detail being described so, because it's true. But you minimized the analysis to that. "Framing" is ambiguous and I'm ignoring that, I guess you could call it framing, but your framing is irrelevant to my analysis
It IS relevant because its the fundamental reason why we can say we'll get positive outcomes from this case. It was even baked into your explanation "ending global imperialism".
Fair enough on the framing, just meant that I ignored it for the first half, otherwise the reply was not engaging with you up to that point, but I wrote sloppily.
But you did not originally say "bigger and smaller IMPERIALIST" you said capitalist empire. It's a totally different discussion which is where we started speaking past on another. I still don't think that's correct, because I don't think a new analysis like Lenin made of imperialism would find Russia as materially equivalent in form or content of imperialism at all (maybe requiring a new word for the type of imperialism done by the US/NATO like super-imperialism or so. That's why I still hold the point that it's not just "bigger v smaller" that matters, but the Qualitative difference that then arose from the quantity of Imperialism performed/exported capital and coerced labour. They should be understood as 2 phenomenon at this point, not a big and small
The general "tankie" position is that the people of Donbas, who mostly do not want to remain part of Ukraine, will not stop suffering attacks without Russia fighting Ukraine off. Russia does not seem interested in siphoning resources from or subjugating the people of Donbas, as they did not the people of Crimea, who merely became Russian citizens. This is very different from US carpetbombing for oil.
US bombing is bad, but Russian bombing is ok? Why do you not apply the same critical spirit to both the USA war crimes and the Russian war crimes?
deleted by creator
If it constitutes war crimes according to neutral analysts, it's not.
There is no such thing as a neutral analyst but yes, even neoliberals talked about the civil war at one point and the Nazi problem and the pogroms and so on. Given this, and given the popular support Russia has among the people of that same region, and that it tried for 8 years to negotiate peaceful secession while Ukraine participated in those talks in bad faith, it sure seems like something very different from, and I cannot stress this enough, flying to the opposite side of the world to carpet bomb in the name of freedom and in the service of oil companies.
Yeah it's just like they're Sudeten-Russians, happy to become real Russians once again
I don't think that the Germans had the popular support of Sudetenland in their annexation.
That's no problem, we call all learn new things every day. You can read about the history of Conrad Henlein (?) and the politics of the annexation to understand the analogy here
This makes your analogy make less sense. No nazi party came to power in the donbass. In fact they precieved that had happened in keiv and seceded.
The analogy is that the invading country came to rescue their ethnic brethren. How does it 'make less sense' when it's correct that they had popular support in the region?
The crisis wasnt started the donbass seceded. The crisis started because there was a coup in keiv. The new government was shelling the donbass long before the invasion. None of that happened in your example.
It's weird how you want to pivot from separatists being propped by their 'big brothers' to "they weren't using exactly the same weapons so it doesn't count".
Nazi's were certainly using armed provocations to provoke the Czechoslovak government into intervention so they could pounce. The only big difference is actually that the latter were much more reluctant and appeasing to the separatists. Which didn't help because annexation was the only goal for the nazi's anyway.
You're in a thread with half a dozen comments like "wow libs and tankies are celebrating this?", followed by a bunch of "tankies" explaining (again) that they do not actually like modern Russia.
you say that as if its a bad thing
I do think that extremism is counter-productive, it uses fallacious arguments and generally only generates more violence.
but violence has already been generated against us, why is it bad when we use it to end that violence?
Because instead we can spend the energy into the development of social-democracy, which has a better track record.
Social Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism, so no. I don't accept such imperialist half measures
deleted by creator
In the end, the nazis died under soviet steel. All's well that ends well.
deleted by creator
Ah thank you, I was too hasty and didn't see the name. I had thought you were a lemmy referring to the molotov ribbentrop. Thank you for correcting me, do you have any recommendations for what I should I read to be more knowledgeable in this subject?
deleted by creator
thank you for the rec, I needed to jumpstart getting back into regular readings anyway
Ah, I didn't expect this one, qualified of objective on top of that. I understand discussion is not possible.
Extremists get shit done. When was the last time voting ever solved anything?
It regularly does, social-democracy seems to generally ensure better living condition to its people. I don't see any extreme left or right regime that provided better conditions than social-democracies.
Do social democracies also ensure better living conditions for the impoverished nations they continue to exploit so they can support their own standards of living?
I'm not sure what you define as an "extreme regime" but you can try looking at Cuba, China, or the USSR, for starters.
I think they could improve their impact on developing nations, especially if we consider the impact of colonialism, but otherwise, yes, I think they contribute to their economic growth which keeps lifting people out of poverty.
It doesn't seem like USSR or Cuba's people had on average better lives than in social-democracies. For China, I think it's getting better, mostly thanks to the intense economical ties with the rest of the world that they tied once they decide to abandon the communist economy. However, they continue having notable issues with authoritarianism, which seem to be getting worse with the current leader.
lol, they (european "social-democracies" and US/EU finance capital) are the root cause of colonialism and the financial system has been built around the global south's over-exploitation at gunpoint. That has never really stopped. Any over-exploited, colonized country that expresses too much democracy or sovereignty ends up invaded, sanctioned, or couped...
Cuba is much better now than before the revolution, when mobsters ruled its cities and landlords ruled over the peasantry with an iron fist. There was no democracy there before, and the moment Cuba had a more democratic system it was under assault from the US. The USSR and Cuba were able to develop the way they did in spite of the bourgeois democracies that invaded or assaulted them at every opportunity
Other countries has intense economical ties to western capital, like India. But their development is nothing compared to China's. They have incredible levels of poverty and a lack of development. I am sure you will invent some alternative theory as to why China was able to eliminate extreme poverty, but the truth is that "social democracies" in Europe and NA have notable issues with authoritarianism against the global south. They looted the rest of the world at gunpoint and now tell them their development is all because they are lazy or corrupt.
"Better conditions than social-democracies" is a tall order considering that most (every?) Marxist-Leninist state was formed in impoverished, exploited countries, and have frequently been targeted by sanctions, boycotts, and so on. If you told a Chinese peasant in the 40's that their country's life expectancy would someday exceed that of the US, they'd call you a liar. Certainly it wasn't about to happen under the Nationalists or anybody else.
Not everyone is allowed to have social democracy. For example, Norway's economy benefits greatly from their oil revenues, but in much of the world, the presence of oil resources is called an "oil curse," because Western governments destabilize and overthrow governments that bring those profits back to the people. When Iran's left-leaning (but not communist) government in the 50's tried to reclaim control of their oil from their British colonial overlords, the CIA did a coup and installed a fascist. There are countless other stories of this happening all around the world.
No country has lifted more people out of poverty and extreme poverty than China. Granting developing countries a second option for investment is an enormous boon for the world, especially since China is much less restrictive over other countries' domestic economic policies compared to the IMF.
This is why I would argue that, even if you disagree with China's system, if you want any other system besides capitalism to be available to people in the developing world, then you should recognize that China is furthering that goal. I don't consider China's system to be perfect or ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but I've read enough history to see more ideal systems get crushed time and again.
I assume that means you haven't read “Left-wing” communism, an infantile disorder by Lenin.