A Ukrainian Neo-Nazi soldier visited the Auschwitz death camp wearing a shirt quoting Hitler in order to mock the camp's victims. This is the type of truly fascist scum that billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars are going to fund and arm.
A Ukrainian Neo-Nazi soldier visited the Auschwitz death camp wearing a shirt quoting Hitler in order to mock the camp's victims. This is the type of truly fascist scum that billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars are going to fund and arm.
Interesting, why do you say that? I find it culturally distant, but I think very good points were made.
No mention of the discrimination and shelling of civilians in the east by Ukrainian government. No mention of NATO aggression since the 90s against Russia. Serious usage of the word "authoritarian" as if this is a genuine political description. Stating that the west did not want this war (?? Wtf). Dismissing off hand in the first part the very real critiqures of Ukraine and NATO as Russian propaganda. The whole thing stinks of radliberalism.
He tries to position zelensky as a poor guy just caught between evil Russians and evil Nazis. Total bullshit. The only grain of truth is that yes, Nazis have many weapons and manpower in Ukraine. So why did Zelensky elevate them during those grand tours all around the world begging for international Patreon subscribers? These Nazis need to be liquidated, not appeased, and if Ukraine and the west is not up to the task (and why would they be? These Nazis are the only committed fighters they can throw against Russians) then Russia is going to do it. I say that as someone who does not like Putin, but as someone who can see the way that war is going.
This guy, even if he is genuine in being a "socialist" whatever he thinks that means, does not have the correct context to understand even his own involvement in this war. He comes off as basically a liberal in all his justifications but then puts a little red fig leaf over these wrong justifications by claiming to be a "leftist".
What's funny is that he mentions a "Ukrainian resistance". I'm sure this was written in the heady days of all those "Putler is finished!" and sanction flinging. Looking back from 2024, there is no resistance and never was. Ukrainians who could rightfully got the fuck out of the country, why would they stay to die for a government that never gave them shit?
And this part I have to laugh at, it shows how out of date even two years later this piece is.
It's true that there would be a guerilla war if Russia occupied ethnically Ukrainian parts of Ukraine. Especially if these Nazi groups are allowed to exist. And as of July 2024, that's not what they're doing. Second, I just have to laugh at the part mentioning sanctions, it just brings back quaint memories. The fact is, the Russian economy has neutered the threat of sanctions and is orienting itself eastward to the detriment of Europe. No more cheap energy for German factories. But don't worry, uncle Sam is there to help..
As for the idea of a Ukrainian resistance mentioned there. I live in a place that recieved quite a few Ukrainians and work with a handful. To paraphrase what they've all said to me: "the country was fucked before 2022, with all the corruption and attending ills that come with kowtoing to the neoliberal/western order. We're not gonna die for that, and we're never going back." So between the attitudes of the diaspora, and the fact that the only way for the Ukrainian army to replenish it's manpower is by snatching people with trucks, I have to just laugh at the idea of a Ukrainian resistance that isn't led by neo Nazis.
Last, it's odd that there's an argument put forward that , because America losing in Vietnam was a good thing, that Russia should lose the Ukraine war to push back their world domination. As if the world hegemon in the 60s-70s is comparable to Russia's regional role today. I mean if we're being honest we can skip the mental gymnastics and say that Ukraine should lose the war, because then America will lose by proxy and that's a good thing according to the author. They're still the most important node in global capitalism today after all. The point he tries to make isn't a flattering one for his own argument, and once again shows how he doesn't understand historical context of these events. Instead he seems to have an essentially liberal lens of "small guy good, big guy bad".
No wonder Jacobin published that article . It ticks off all their little boxes of being pathetically aesthetically radical without actually coming to a different conclusion than that reached by the US state department.
Removed by mod