I agree that Russia has the right to oppose US expansion. I don't agree that people can have a historic right to war or a state. The idea that somehow 30 million dead gives a completely different nation state the right to declare war 70 years layer is insane to me. Just as the idea that the holocaust gives Israel the right to disposes a completely unrelated people in a completely different part of the world. I agree history for any given thing needsa to be taken into account, and that people are not completely rational agents, but there are limits.
Stalin did what the west wants Russia to do right now and they call him a nazi-sympathizer/collaborator 90% of the time.
EDit: If Stalin struck the nazis first you know they (liberals) would have said he started WW2 and pinned literally every death on him. Would also say the Nazis weren't doing anything that bad yet, etc.
If Stalin struck the nazis first you know they (liberals) would have said he started WW2 and pinned literally every death on him
on top of this they (UK, France) wanted Hitler to strike first anyway. The EU to this day holds the M-R non-aggression pact against Russia despite UK, France, and other countries doing similar agreements first and shooting down Stalin's suggestion of an anti-fascist alliance
1933 - UK, France, Italy - The four powers pact
1934 - Poland - Hitler-Pilsudski Pact
1935 - UK - Anglo-German Naval agreement
1936 - Japan - Anti-Comintern pact
1938 - September - UK - German-British Non Aggression Pact
1938 - December - France - German-French Non Aggression Pact
1939 - March - Romania - German Romanian Economical Treaty
1939 - March - Lithuania - Non aggression ultimatum
1939 - May - Italy - Pact of Steel (Friendship and Alliance)
1939 - May - Denmark - Non aggression pact
1939 - June - Estonia - non aggression pact
1939 - July - Latvia - non aggression pact
1939 - August - USSR - Molotov-Ribbentrop Non Aggression pact - the only ones libs care about
Stalin with regards to this said:
"Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at an attack upon the USSR. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that."
Even the US state department confirmed Stalin's rationale for a pact with Hitler
"The Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany after the British and French rejected Soviet offers to establish a military alliance against Germany"
CIA declassifies its dealings with ex nazis
Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'
How the Allied multinationals supplied Nazi Germany throughout World War II
Daddy Parenti on the causes of WWII
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9Lievywdoo
From Putin's speech announcing the SMO
Despite all that, in December 2021, we made yet another attempt to reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. Our efforts were in vain. The United States has not changed its position. It does not believe it necessary to agree with Russia on a matter that is critical for us. The United States is pursuing its own objectives, while neglecting our interests.
Of course, this situation begs a question: what next, what are we to expect? If history is any guide, we know that in 1940 and early 1941 the Soviet Union went to great lengths to prevent war or at least delay its outbreak. To this end, the USSR sought not to provoke the potential aggressor until the very end by refraining or postponing the most urgent and obvious preparations it had to make to defend itself from an imminent attack. When it finally acted, it was too late.
As a result, the country was not prepared to counter the invasion by Nazi Germany, which attacked our Motherland on June 22, 1941, without declaring war. The country stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it, but this came at a tremendous cost. The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people. In the first months after the hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic importance, as well as millions of lives. We will not make this mistake the second time. We have no right to do so.
Whatever you guys think about Finkelstein's opinion, you gotta hand it to him: the guy fucking paid his dues as a dissonant intellectual. It would have been so fucking easy to shut up about Israel and Dershowitz and just get tenured. The guy's a fucking living saint.
At the very least we know he stands in complete solidarity with them, since he has chosen to prioritize them over his own career, which I am not sure I know a lot of other people who would have.
Far as I'm concerned, nobody has the fuckin' right to go charging in to a country and blowing it to high hell if the citizens there don't want it. This applies to the west and to Russia. It's hard to not be just pro-Russia and take a nuanced position when the west propaganda machine is "WEST 100% GOOD RUSSIA EVIL", and when Russia has spent eight years desperately pushing for a peaceful solution. But at the end of the day practically all the involved modern countries do is just have bourgeois politicians playing silly buggers with the lives of proles, and none of it is justified.
That emoji is so wild to look at. I thought my brain was playing tricks on me.
This guy knows how to say that Russia has the historic right to invade Ukraine
she wouldnt be doing her job if she didn't equate the global empire overthrowing your neighbor's friendly/neutral government, replacing them with the followers and descendants of the Nazis who invaded through that neighboring country in the previous century, and pouring military hardware and "trainers" into that country with, um... settling another country and then flattening them with overwhelming force whenever they shoot rockets at you. I think it's way more apt to compare Ukraine to Israel: an aggressive imperial proxy rapidly radicalizing into ethnonationalist conflict and cleansing
While I don't agree that they have the right to do so, I have been going back to essentially this line of thinking. It makes sense even if it is still morally wrong. End of the day we treat nation states as these inherent and god-given things, with no regard to the arbitrariness of them most of the time.
It is an argument worth making and working through because it sure as heck is one various nations are going to come to themselves. I don't find the amount of Soviet dead to be a good argument though, it gives good context for the Russian mindset and population's legit worries about Ukrainian nazis. However it doesn't give a right.
What i think is salient is the Sadat comparison, his core point is that if treaty after treaty is broken, and even legal recourse is subverted, does the illegal action in reaction to those acts count as criminal? I would say it does, but I do think de facto it doesn't matter much. He is not saying Russia has a preordained right to invade Ukraine, his point is specifically that the refusal of treaties and litigation for 20 years created a casus belli for Russia. So to cry about a criminal invasion after doing all that is not just hypocritical, but worthless when dealing with the logic of nation states as actors
edit: also holy shit calling what happened to the USSR the "decomposition of the Soviet Union" is perfect and I am stealing that
If you accept that the nationstate is a totally cool and fine thing that should totally exist, then I think you have to accept that Russia is almost effectively acting in self-defence. Hence why this should be a moment to realise that we should be refuting the premise to start with.
