I'm happy you posted this but it might need to go to c/dunktank
Also I guess this is 80 year old petty trot drama but citing "if fascist Italy supported an anti-colonial uprising against France, internationalist should support them arming the rebels" is a pretty bad point because if that situation happened, Italy would probably be able to give arms to a questionable faction if they truly supported the cause, or stop supporting the cause pretty quickly when convenient like the US and the Kurds.
Also doesn't really talk about Zelensky banning opposing parties (liberals suddenly don't care about free speech when national security is at risk but still hate Cuba)
I guess it's different when you're on the ground with the troops so shit gets normalized, but rationalizing Zelensky trying to appease nationalists and not talking about the banning of left parties is sus to me (call them Russian shills or address them in some way). Idk what the Jacobin line is with pre-WW2 Germany and the whole Rosa Luxemburg thing but to me that's making the exact same mistakes again, rationalizing a liberal handing power to fascists.
Why did Azov get their own city to rule before Russia took over (Mariupol) and there weren't any hard left equivalents?
Also hate when the idea of self-determination is brought up when it comes to joining NATO, a military alliance with a defence pact, which is not the same as a defensive organization. What about self determination of those two new republics in the less bandera part of the country? I guess it's a half realpolitik argument and half NATO bad argument, but it's still a risky move to poke Russia like that by joining the org that toppled Gaddafi and didn't care about what happened next in Libya.
Also not sure about military defeat of Russia being a good thing if it gets carved out again like after the Soviet Union, but maybe it would be a reshuffle to a similar situation so I'm not really going to argue against that point.
I'm happy you posted this but it might need to go to c/dunktank
Also I guess this is 80 year old petty trot drama but citing "if fascist Italy supported an anti-colonial uprising against France, internationalist should support them arming the rebels" is a pretty bad point because if that situation happened, Italy would probably be able to give arms to a questionable faction if they truly supported the cause, or stop supporting the cause pretty quickly when convenient like the US and the Kurds.
Also doesn't really talk about Zelensky banning opposing parties (liberals suddenly don't care about free speech when national security is at risk but still hate Cuba)
I guess it's different when you're on the ground with the troops so shit gets normalized, but rationalizing Zelensky trying to appease nationalists and not talking about the banning of left parties is sus to me (call them Russian shills or address them in some way). Idk what the Jacobin line is with pre-WW2 Germany and the whole Rosa Luxemburg thing but to me that's making the exact same mistakes again, rationalizing a liberal handing power to fascists.
Why did Azov get their own city to rule before Russia took over (Mariupol) and there weren't any hard left equivalents?
Also hate when the idea of self-determination is brought up when it comes to joining NATO, a military alliance with a defence pact, which is not the same as a defensive organization. What about self determination of those two new republics in the less bandera part of the country? I guess it's a half realpolitik argument and half NATO bad argument, but it's still a risky move to poke Russia like that by joining the org that toppled Gaddafi and didn't care about what happened next in Libya.
Also not sure about military defeat of Russia being a good thing if it gets carved out again like after the Soviet Union, but maybe it would be a reshuffle to a similar situation so I'm not really going to argue against that point.