https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2135509

this is practically a child’s view of the world. good guy vs bad guy. Russia = bad, NATO = good. plus, someone should tell her she has it completely backwards: ending russia is kinda natos entire thing

  • duderium [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    If we can support Syria and Iran critically, we can do the same for Russia in its fight against American imperialism.

    • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]
      hexagon
      ·
      1 year ago

      amen. emphasis on critically tho. too many liberals think “critical support” means “super extra support”. all of us here understand that Russia is capitalist and pretty horrible on LGBTQ rights (not rlly worse than amerika tho). the difference is that NATO represents western empire: an institution that suppresses most of the world and extracts $10 trillion every year from the global south. Russia’s imperial ambitions are strictly regional, thus much easier to curtail by AES states. the global empire is infinitely more harmful to the proletariat of the world than a regional empire. im preaching to the choir here but i hope lemmy libs read this and understand

      • duderium [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I agree on all your points except for the existence of Russian imperialism. By Lenin’s definition—correct me if I’m wrong—imperialism is when finance capital is consolidated enough in a given country for that country to begin exporting capital abroad. This might have been the case before the war since so many Russian oligarchs had their billions stashed in western banks, but the contradictions of imperialism itself—its need to grow and consume itself from the inside—now mean that this is no longer the case. Those Russian billions are either frozen or withdrawn as far as I know. Russia’s alignment with China and the BRICS, its long history of fighting for the global south (consider the images we’ve seen for years now of African protestors waving Russian flags), suggest to me that Russia is not actually imperialist and that it is indeed fighting for its life and existence (as it says). Putin is an opportunist appointed by Yeltsin (himself appointed by Clinton!), but opportunism can sometimes point in the right direction because there is no other way for it to survive. (The current president of South Africa is a criminal who likewise deserves our critical support due to his alignment with the BRICS, although none of us are going to be complaining if the EFF takes over next year.) All of us likewise know that a NATO victory in this war will just begin another nightmarish chapter of imperialism in eastern Europe, while a NATO defeat will present opportunities for workers around the world to throw off the American yoke.

        • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]
          hexagon
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          they certainly are fighting for their existence. but part of the existence they are fighting for is their status as an imperial power. their ability to partake in imperialism has definitely been diminished by the recent sanctions, but they still hold on to imperialist practices. check their foreign investments. they have certainly been forcibly divested from the western sphere of influence, but they have responded by increasing investments in wealthy eastern countries and the eastern global south

            • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]
              hexagon
              ·
              1 year ago

              great comment and very solid points! i concede that calling Russia imperialist is arguable, but as western hegemony has been faltering in the past couple decades, Russian capitalists have picked up a lot of slack (see their relationship with Syria and Turkey; its hard to argue that their support goes beyond expanding the foreign interests of Russian capitalists). and surely you see the problem with comparing foreign investment of Russia vs China. Russian investments are privately held and aim to produce profit. investments from China are a mix of public and private, and they are demonstrably focused on mutual prosperity

          • duderium [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            The values there seem to be from before the war? They were investing mostly in the Cayman Islands (lol), and my guess is that that money has either been withdrawn or stolen at this point, although I honestly don’t know.

            • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]
              hexagon
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              there are enough values updated during the war to draw some conclusions. yeah, the money moves around so much its impossible to know the extent of how this affects Russian capitalists. this recent hit to Russian capital is great tho, increases the chance of revolution to take hold there

        • confusedbytheBasics@lemm.ee
          ·
          1 year ago

          For context, were you alive and politically aware in 1991?

          Can you please explain how you think Bill Clinton appointed Yeltsin? Or are you playing with words and just referring to cooperation between the Clinton administration and Yeltsin's?

          • duderium [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            The USA was attempting to destroy the USSR from day one, and even invaded Russia (unprovoked) within months of the October Revolution. Yeltsin would have lost the ‘96 election to the communists without Clinton’s direct intervention. When you combine this with the USA’s relentless obsession with funding Nazis worldwide to destroy communism both within and without the USSR, it becomes quite clear that the situation with Russia and Ukraine today is a direct consequence of American meddling overseas.

              • duderium [he/him]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, very mysteriously even the best history teachers in the country seem to have trouble finding the time to mention this. I took APUSH five days a week an hour a day (or so?) for a year and it was never brought up. Curious! It’s almost as though the USA looks like the bad guy throughout the 20th century and into the 21st when this fact is mentioned. It also completely recontextualizes the Cold War. Very concerning!

              • charlie
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I didn’t know any of that. Naturally I go reading to learn more and find this laughable article.

                lol

                Anyone happen to have a non-lib source to read about this?

                The U.S. soldiers in northern Russia, the U.S. Army’s 339th regiment, were chosen for the deployment because they were mostly from Michigan, so military commanders figured they could handle the war zone’s extreme cold

                While the Polar Bears played a reluctant role in the Russian Civil War, the U.S. commander in Siberia, General William Graves, did his best to keep his troops out of it.

                Everything I know about Graves has me screaming at that honk-enraged

              • duderium [he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Nazis were funded with American capital. There are many, many other examples of this from around the world. The Batista regime in Cuba, the Contras, the US-backed fascists who built South Korea or Taiwan, the list just goes on and on. I will cite sources at your request, but I would ask you to do a simple google search—i.e., "was Park Chung Hee a fascist?"—and a little reading before doing so.

                • charlie
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You could baby bird that shit right into their mouths and they probably still wouldn’t get it.

          • Vncredleader
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/UAHISTJRNL/article/view/23567/0

            Show

          • confusedbytheBasics@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            How can you think that? Being queer in one nation is a crime punishable with jail time in the other nation being queer is totally legal, celebrated with parades, and same sex marriage is valid nation wide.

            • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]
              hexagon
              ·
              1 year ago

              lol which nation punishes being queer with jail time?

              that was a rhetorical question. like i said, both nations have horrible track records w respect to LGBTQ communities, but neither jails ppl for being queer. at least not anymore, amerika had anti-sodomy laws until 2003. Russia does not jail ppl for gay sex

              also the pride parades in amerika have been completely co-opted by capitalism. cops are allowed and even praised at most pride events and many of these events exclude different parts of the queer community

              • confusedbytheBasics@lemm.ee
                ·
                1 year ago

                I was thinking of Chechnya which doesn't represent the whole Russian Republic. I'll update my info there. None the less persecution is ongoing.

                You are still arguing a losing point. USA legally protects LGBT status and same sex marriages. The anti sodomy laws were invalidated 20 years ago.

                Russia constitutionally banned same sex unions in 2020. There are no special protections for LGBT citizens.

                It's night and day.

                • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]
                  hexagon
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  if you are looking for a “night and day” comparison, compare either of these countries to Cuba, a country so legitimately dedicated to LGBTQ rights they amended their constitution to include them. the amerikan legal protections are flimsy and ineffective. i dont care abt being able to marry my partner as much as i care abt being denied health care, being assaulted or killed, and having our children taken away by the state. all of these acts of violence are permitted and perpetuated by the amerikan state.

    • Barbariandude [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hasn't Russia's war on Ukraine done more to reinvigorate NATO than anything else in the past decade? If the goal is the diminishment of NATO, then Russia's war on Ukraine is definitely bad for that goal.

      • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]
        hexagon
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        allowing Ukraine to join NATO would be much more invigorating. denying them the oblasts east of the Dnieper River means NATO loses out on a ton of industrial and agricultural capacity

        plus, this war is tearing NATO apart. many Europeans are not content with becoming even more subjugated to amerika so global capital can keep expanding its hoarded wealth

        • Barbariandude [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          many Europeans are not content...

          I don't think that's true. I'm an eastern European, and speaking anecdotally, support for Ukraine and consequently NATO is absolutely surging. Looking at polls, it seems that 85% of people in my country have a positive view of NATO atm.

            • Barbariandude [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Germany is a special case for this. Post WW2, they've had a strong pacifism streak. It was absolutely shocking at the time that they decided to send offensive weapons at all. Would have been unthinkable 2 years ago.

          • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, but people love to hate Russians, and does it really matter if the people like or dislike nato? I've got a suspicion that working people in your country have as little influence on nato actions as the workers anywhere else in Europe.

            • Barbariandude [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Completely agree that it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. Politicians will use polls that are useful to them and ignore those that aren't. I was replying to the point that this war is fomenting anti-NATO sentiment, which I don't think is true.

      • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
        ·
        1 year ago

        The war with nato was always going to be "reinvigorated" whenever it chose to start a war with Russia. There's nothing Russia can do about that. They just need to win. Also, it's not as if the war wasn't inevitable. There's so much money to be pulled out of Russia while the nato armies are on their way to China. There's no way the richest westerners were just gonna leave it on the table.

        • Barbariandude [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          It's very easy to say "they just need to win!" when you have no skin in the game. Eastern Europe knows what it's like to be under Russian subjugation, and no amount of anti-NATO critical support will change that fact.

          • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
            ·
            1 year ago

            I meant for Russia, whenever this war happens (which is now), all they can do on their end is win. They can't control how other European countries direct nationalist sentiments. Also, my "support" is literally just musing on this website.

            I've always mixed with a lot of eastern Europeans in the US, and trying to figure out if Russia was really a bogeyman that was a dark cloud over their lives has always been really murky. I've known jews that had to leave when the USSR was collapsing and rightwing nationalists were becoming terrifying.

            I known a lot of Polish workers that had their lives upended by rightwing nationalists as the USSR collapsed. They came to the US trying to scrape a living together.

            Of course people process the experience in all kinds of ways, arriving at coherent and incoherent conclusions.

            The one universal is that unless they agree everything is the fault of Russians and absolve all of their country's rightwing opportunists and collaborators from 1917 on, their stories aren't part of the broader media narratives.

            I guess what I'm getting at, when I talk to people in the diaspora, the relationship with Russia might be highly contingent on class and heavily colored by ethnic nationalism.

            • Barbariandude [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thank you for this comment. I mean that very honestly. Far too many people see countries as monoliths, and I fall into that trap when trying to make a point from time to time.

              About the overarching media narratives, the most rabidly anti-Russian atm are Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, just fyi.

              • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
                ·
                1 year ago

                I was really worried about saying well ackshually to someone actually living in eastern Europe. Here in my part of the US the wildest anti-Russian media narratives also center on Poles and Lithuanians.

                • Barbariandude [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I'll never fault anyone for talking about facts and their experiences. Even (especially!) if they contradict mine, I'll always appreciate someone talking to me in good faith.

          • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Most immediately, a escalating genocide in the Donbas that Russia intervened in after several years. Otherwise it's a story that would probably make the most sense to start in the early 20th century.

      • CyborgMarx [any, any]
        ·
        1 year ago

        It's depleted NATO's stockpile, armed a new generation of radicalized right-wing mercenaries (who will definitely not sit quietly in Europe after the war ends) and has deindustrialized Europe through the energy crisis

        It hasn't benefited NATO countries, it's benefited the US momentarily, until it blunders into another foreign policy mess

        • Barbariandude [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          depleted NATO's stockpile

          Of obsolete equipment that was just sitting in storage costing the US money. Other countries are looking at this as an opportunity to modernize cheaply by getting the US to replace what they're sending with better gear.

          Armed a new generation of radicalized right-wing mercenaries

          No comment. You might be right about that, remains to be seen.

          Deindustrialized Europe

          Absolutely not true. The EU has managed to recover from the pipelines turning off, and have built up LNG terminals to keep on chugging without issue. It cost and will cost a lot of money, but the industry will flow. If anything, the big loser in this is the global south who might not have the cash to compete with the EU buying up LNG, not Europe.

          • CyborgMarx [any, any]
            ·
            1 year ago

            It's not just obsolete equipment, in most NATO countries it's the only equipment these countries have, and there's no definition of "obsolete" that includes Himars, patriots, strykers, Bradleys, Ceasars, Leopards, Challengers, those are the mainstays of western armaments, and there is no such thing as "cheap" modernization, especially not when it comes to the US arms industry

            Absolutely not true. The EU has managed to recover from the pipelines turning off, and have built up LNG terminals to keep on chugging without issue.

            What you're asserting simply isn't true, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/europe-facing-costly-winter-without-enough-long-term-lng-deals-2023-04-06/

            https://apnews.com/article/europe-business-germany-weather-european-union-9b1e7c90542b8dd6ab5b9bae47c65d95

            The German manufacturing PMI index has sunk to 38.8 (50 is supposed to signal recession), that's the lowest level since 2020 at 32.0 during the height of the Covid depression

            And that's the top performing economy in Europe right now

            • Barbariandude [he/him]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The number of modern systems in play is tiny. The vast majority of the aid has been old systems. 4 HIMARS and 50 Bradleys are hardly going to deplete US supply, let's be real here.

              About the various links, none of that contradicts what I'm saying. I didn't say that this had no cost, quite on the contrary. I said that EU funds buying up supply will hurt more than the EU, and the EU does have the cash to afford this.

              About the PMI, your own link does not connect this to the energy sector. It connects this to weaker demand for goods. Comparing and contrasting with Italy, France, Czech Republic, Poland and Romania shows a similar story: companies are dropping production due to expectations that demand is dipping as people are tightening their purses.

              • CyborgMarx [any, any]
                ·
                1 year ago

                The number of modern systems in play is tiny.

                Bro what are you talking about?

                4 HIMARS and 50 Bradleys are hardly going to deplete US supply

                That's incorrect it's 38+ Himars and 186 Bradleys so far from the US alone, also I'm not only talking about US stockpiles, I said "NATO countries" and it's not the launcher systems that are in danger of being depleted, it's the ammunition they fire

                It connects this to weaker demand for goods. Comparing and contrasting with Italy, France, Czech Republic, Poland and Romania shows a similar story: companies are dropping production due to expectations that demand is dipping as people are tightening their purses.

                Yes, weaker consumer demand because the money in those tight purses are going to personnel energy costs which have skyrocketed again despite the summer dip, hence the recession numbers across the board, there's no sector of the economy that doesn't affect the others

                • Barbariandude [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sorry, I was looking at old numbers. 38 HIMARS and 186 bradleys is no danger to US stockpiles either. Ammo though, that's a more interesting question. Arms industries are ramping up production like mad. This is an absolute godsend for arms companies. This isn't hurting NATO, this is lining the pockets of military industrial sectors worldwide.

                  On the financial front, I'm rapidly reaching the limit of my knowledge. I will concede the point, but warn that at least in the east, people are willing to absorb a lot of financial pain if it means punching the Russian empire in the face. Western Europe may be forced, kicking and screaming, to follow suit for fear of fracturing Europe.

                  • CyborgMarx [any, any]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    This is an absolute godsend for arms companies. This isn't hurting NATO, this is lining the pockets of military industrial sectors worldwide.

                    When I say NATO I'm naively including Europe and not simply the United States, US arms companies are indeed making dough and the Euro regimes may even be willing to print out the big bucks for the American MIC, but those countries also have native defense industries that make up a sizable chunk of their national manufacturing sectors, and I'm telling you right now bro there is no way the cheapskate ordoliberals of Europe are gonna pay for two continent wide modernization programs, it's either the Americans or their own local arms companies and the Americans are gonna win out

                    but warn that at least in the east, people are willing to absorb a lot of financial pain if it means punching the Russian empire in the face Western Europe may be forced, kicking and screaming, to follow suit for fear of fracturing Europe.

                    Translation; the neoliberal regimes of Europe are willing to sacrifice the livelihoods of their citizens to further the ambitions of an American dominated NATO and sow the seeds of future war and the inevitable blowback it entails

                    • Barbariandude [he/him]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      It's not only the US industry ramping up. Companies across Europe are expanding existing ammo factories and making new ones. With the blank cheque that Ukraine has been given by the US, they're not doing this for free.

                      You can cynically look at this as "sacrificing the livelihoods of citizens", and I'm not going to stop you if you want to see it that way, but in some specific countries, any sign of weakness towards Russia by a politician would cause that politician to be thrown out. If not by vote of no confidence, then by mob.

                      • CyborgMarx [any, any]
                        ·
                        1 year ago

                        You're contradicting yourself because you're not being specific, it's not "companies across europe" it's the native defense industries of only a few countries, Germany, France, UK and maybe Italy none are which the insane eastern states that would lynch a politican for negotiating with russia

                        The rest would blow a hole in their budget if they attempted to expand local industrial production of weapons beyond a certain point

                        And the big countries don't want to expand cause that will also blow a hole in their budget, Europe is ruled by Americanized ordoliberals, the cratering of millions of their citizen's livelihoods didn't stop them from cutting the state and a proxy war in Ukraine isn't gonna stop them either

                        They'll waste money on expensive overenineered American garbage and then call it a day and the Eastern states can go back to the Soviet Union to replenish their stock- oh wait no they can't they'll also have to buy trash Anerican weapon systems

          • TrudeauCastroson [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Have they recovered though? Germany especially is stupid because their greens pushed to turn off nuclear plants and won, after they already started sanctioning Russia. Consumer inflation is high in the Nato-sphere because cost of transport and energy went way up.

            I guess we'll see if EU pushes for a ceasefire after another winter of expensive natural gas. I'm surprised the nordstream bombing didn't piss off more Germans.

            Global south countries seem to be working around how expensive war made some things by trading with Russia directly for stuff instead of paying market rate, which is why all those African countries don't feel like condemning the invasion.

            • Barbariandude [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Consumer inflation...

              Yeah, very much the case. I feel this every day. It's caused some grumbling, but not many people are linking this with NATO. The tendency seems to be blaming Russia. Again, anecdotally, but still.

              EU ceasefire

              No chance. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Poland and Bulgaria would riot. All of the Bucharest Nine are firmly against giving Russia time to rearm, replenish and come back for round two, which is what they expect Russia would use the ceasefire for.

              Global south...

              Unfortunately very true. Russia blowing up the grain shipment deal didn't help. Hopefully Turkey can bring them back to the negotiating table.

              • CascadeOfLight [he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Important to note that Russia didn't wantonly scrap the grain deal, they just didn't renew it when it expired - for the simple reason that the other side didn't uphold even one single part of their end of the bargain.

      • RollaD20 [comrade/them, any]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There are obviously a lot of ways to look at the war between Russia and Ukraine, but if we are looking at it from its geopolitical antagonism with NATO, then it needs to be understood as a conflict that the West has wanted and taken action to foment for decades. Some people speak of Russia invading Ukraine as if it was something done on a whim rather than a military action that was at least viewed as necessary for Russian national security. While the invasion soured Russia's image and has ruined relations with some bordering countries, Russia almost certainly didn't see any other course of action other than invasion due to the threat of NATO encirclement along with the western puppet government of Ukraine. Regardless of the goals of diminishing NATO or not, this conflict was a seemingly inevitable proxy war between NATO and Russia following Maidan. The fact that the war is happening at all is a victory for NATO and the west because it means they've driven a semi-permanent wedge between Russia and Ukraine, at this point its about limiting further NATO gains. I find it deeply tragic that there weren't diplomatic ways to ensure the security of both Ukraine and Russia and wish that the war wasn't deemed necessary, add it to the list of post-soviet tragedies.

        All that said, if we are discussing how this conflict relates to the dissolution of NATO. I don't think it does, at least not immediately or directly which is why I think the sooner the war is over the better. Russia is most a threat to the imperial core through providing military support to anti-imperialist efforts like those in West Africa, but they can't ignore dangerous western provocation in neighboring countries either.