I think a material difference between Iraq (v2 anyway) and Ukraine is that they can keep doing the "well Russia was the aggressor" thing indefinitely even if the reality is more complicated.
also yes obviously some libs are still stubborn about Iraq, the worst ones, but for the most part its generally agreed that the Iraq War was a bad thing.
In ten years every liberal who was frothing about russian orcs will confidently tell you they always said the neo-nazi problem in Ukraine was bigger than the invasion, and that they correctly predicted all these terror attacks all over Europe, and they're definitely anti-fascists from way back.
In ten years they will still be demanding Russia cedes Crimea.
They don't care about the Kurds is Syria after having been told they were out bestest friends in the middle east, I think they'll completely abandon it
Kurds aren’t “aryan” though. You’re missing the racism from your analysis.
Look at the situation with Ukraine - Ukrainians and Russians are as close to brothers as you can get, but for some reason the Ukrainians are white europeans while the Russians are slavic orcs, asiatic, etc. All this will take is pulling that honorary aryan designation back from the Ukrainians and what do you know, they were asian slavic orcs the whole time
Key difference: there's no US boots on the ground in Ukraine. Like with Vietnam, a lot of the Iraq rhetoric is centered on the american soldiers who were killed and maimed. Notice how US/NATO intervention in Libya and Kosovo, which was accomplished primarily through air power and without significant losses, has not had any critical reexamination—I would think the lack of american corpses has a good deal to do with that
disclaimer: this is not financial advice, i am just a small worm
At first I thought that this was the one comment here I agreed with the most, and I might still think that, but the difference is that Libya/Kosovo were "over" much faster than Ukraine. The boogeymen were quickly taken out, while Russia just refuses to collapse, at least so far.
In my extremely limited experience, outside of the internet, libs don't really care about Ukraine anymore and won't push back if you criticize Biden giving tens of billions of dollars to Nazis. This in itself may be kind of a re-examination on their part? They also feel the same way about covid, though. It just doesn't matter at all to them, even though it's actually still extremely important (as is Ukraine). I do have to kind of wonder what they care about at the moment? They were so happy when Biden won the election, but I think most of us strongly suspected that this was going to be as good as it got for them for quite some time. Who knows, it might even be their last major victory.
Like with Vietnam, a lot of the Iraq rhetoric is centered on the american soldiers who were killed and maimed.
Even when they oppose war, it's backed by nationalist reasons.
There’s definitely US boots on the ground, just like there are in Syria, Yemen, Kenya, Pakistan and all the other nations we don’t officially invade. There are literally US soldiers, spec ops and bases and officers stationed there coordinating raids, launching drones, doing spec ops.
Americans think there is this hard solid line between invasion with boots and other activities, but in reality there’s no discrete border it just slowly becomes a full invasion
Advisors and intelligence guys are not the same as the US occupying in force.
It's a gradient and blurred line that further blurs over time as "intelligence guys" start doing special operations and assassinations of political and military targets, and the "advisors" are launching recon drones and coordinating the Ukrainian military. Oh, not to mention all the "recently retired" military "mercenaries" driving the tanks.
Eventually US soldiers do occupy held positions as well, as seen in Syria where there are thousands of literal US troops occupying the country yet almost every American would say we never invaded Syria if you ask them. Huh weird, if you never invaded how did thousands of your troops set up bases in a nation you were not invited into? If you never invaded, why are you launching cruise missiles and drone strikes into Syrian territory? This American fiction about "boots on the ground" is a Liberal delusion to assuage the cognitive dissonance they have about being a bloodthirsty world-conquering military empire.
Then after the fact, if Liberals ever acknowledge their complicity in an invasion, it's framed as "the US got pulled, unwilling, into a quagmire" as if that wasn't the full intention the entire time and they didn't get pulled but were pushed in by the US government and MIC - first as advisors, then as intel guys, then as mercenaries, then the drone strikes as "anti-terrorism" operations, then as "peace-keepers" in a coalition force. It's a smooth gradient, there is no wall.
I and a lot of others protested the Iraq invasion before it took place, and predicted the somewhat obvious quagmire that resulted. I would have protested the Russian invasion as well if I were a Russian citizen and if it would have been safe enough to do so (Putin’s dictatorship makes that purely hypothetical though).
I think we may disagree on the origins of the Maidan Protests, the Crimea annexation, and at this point probably even the end of WW2 and Soviet Union.
Edit: aw shit, I just realized where I am.
Did you protest arming Nazi militias like Azov that posted videos of themselves crucifying people and burning them alive or giving them electric shocks while making them dig a grave?
That's a lot of words for "no."
Just say you supported the Maidan coup.
Most Westerners who watched the news did
At the time my impression was "brave Ukrainian students ousting their corrupt Russian minion of a president so they can join the EU and become a proper European country instead of a depressing Soviet hellhole"
That's still the level most people are operating on
I think a lot of people naivly-as-opposed-to-maliciously believe what doublepepperoni said.
I think people on Hexbear often forget how different the world looks to the average person in the West
I mean, I exist in the West, I'm well aware of how bad the typical person's politics regarding foreign countries are.
even the end of WW2 and the Soviet Union
Average Operation Unthinkable supporter
even the end of WW2 and Soviet Union.
ain’t that some shit. please enlighten us all what you meant by this? Do you think the wrong side won the war? Are you saying you think the world would have been a better place if Nazi Germany hadn’t been defeated by the Soviet Union? We are all ears.
Based on their other opinions, I dont think they would (openly) go that far which is why I'm kind of baffled by the statement and want to know what the hell they DID mean. Like maybe they dont think the USSR won the war alone. Or they believe Double Genocide Theory? Idk.
ETA: Oh maybe its that they think Operation Unthinkable was a good idea like another poster suggested.
probably even the end of WW2 and Soviet Union.
?????????????
The nazis were talked into defeat, it was the power of love obviously
Edit: aw shit, I just realized where I am.
What do you mean by this?
Again ?????????? What the fuck does this even mean?
The western powers put ex nazis in control in West Germany but I dont think thats what you're asking about.
Conspiracy nutter is when you think history has more moving parts than a Marvel script
Your side is the one giving ten minute standing ovations to veterans of the 14th SS volunteer division to own the ruskies and re-writing history
remember after Ferguson when Putin had the US police murder several BLM leaders in separate incidents and then light their cars on fire?
If I were Russian I would have volunteered to fight with the DPR in 2014 and would be posting Z and helping destroy AmeriKKKa
revolutionary defeatism is for use against imperialists, not anti-imperialists combatting the world hegemonic empire. If I was in Syria I would be fighting for Assad. If I were in Iraq during US invasion I would be fighting for Saddam. If I were in Libya, I would fight for Gaddafi. The right to resist imperialism supersedes all else, it's the primary contradiction.
Most MLs I have spoken to think revolutionairy defeatism absolutely applies to Russia and praise activists fighting the draft there.
Russia may be a lesser evil on the geopolitical stage but treating them as purely an antiimperialist force worth uncritically supporting to the point where you actually take up arms for their revanchist activities (and yes, part of the motive for Russia's actions is revanchism, NATO encirclement and Donbass also factor in, but denying the revanchism is foolish).
Well I disagree with most western MLs and instead agree with DPRK, China, Cuba and other AES ML nations who are allied with Russia
Russia has won my trust after Syria and Belarus, they have consistently acted in an anti-imperialist manner for many conflicts now. Why they are acting in this manner is not relevant, only that they are. China, DPRK, Cuba all agree with me
Geopoltiically aligning with Russia is different from being a Russian citizen living in Russia. Do you condemn Russians fighting being drafted into a war they don't want to participate in?
Russia has risen to a sacred fight to protect its sovereignty and security against the hegemonic forces. North Korea supports all Putin's decisions. I’m sure we will remain together in [the] fight against imperialism
Kim Jong Un
Do you believe you and other westerners understand anti-imperialism and what needs to be done for the victory of socialism more than the official position of the most advanced socialist nation on Earth that is basically defined by its anti-imperialist stance and almost always materially supporting the correct side of any conflict (even when westerners cry)?
Again, AES countries aligning with Russia isn't the same as a Russian citizen living in Russia.
Read comrade KJU’s comment one hundred times as punishment for your chauvinism
I read it. I agree with the DPRK aligning with Russia (not that they can have much influence there). I'm still talking about Russian citizens living in Russia, not the leaders of AES countries.
You cant just throw around terms like "westener" and "chauvanism" because they make you feel right lol.
So you think KJU is cynically lying and that the DPRK actually doesn’t support anti-imperialism?
You cant just throw around terms like "westener" and "chauvanism" because they make you feel right lol.
When my views align with AES and your views align with western leftists, yes I can and I will
I believe it’s a fight for Russia’s continued existence and is as necessary as the great patriotic war. Russians should fight if they don’t want the US to loot their corpses again
Thinking slavery is good doesnt seem very leftist to me but ok. Sounds like you've forgotten the critical in critical support. Putin isnt a anti-imperialist ideologue, and modern Russia isnt an anti-imperialist force by nature, it just happens that Russias goals align with antiimperialism right now.
Also, to respond to a previous point, bourgeoise countries shouldn't "earn your trust", that is not material analysis.
Did the USSR “enslave” the conscripts to the red army? Or maybe existential war is a valid reason to take certain measures?
Again, ideologues and ideology are not relevant. Only outcomes. Russia is fighting for its survival against imperialists. That means they should not be sabotaged by anyone who considers themselves an anti-imperialist. Imperialism is the primary contradiction. Imperialism is the primary contradiction. Imperialism is the primary contradiction. Have you internalized this yet?
You know what? Disengage. Badgering me with repeated slogans that I already believe is just talking down so I'm out.
when they have a collective realization it usually comes long after it stops mattering (like denouncing the coup in Chile that happened 50 years ago)
The collective realization happened with Iraq before the war was over at least. But yeah there's a lot of differences that mean that I dont think thatll happen here.
I feel like that realization had more to do with the part where it just kept going even after the whole overthrowing Saddam bit by a lot. Especially after all the reasons given for going in were one by one shown to be wrong from the jump. Even with all that, I think the libs were more embarrassed about how much money was used in "nation building" while the US economy tanked. And not so much for the reasons that we constantly hear from them about "cost of human lives" or whatever pretend moral shit. I think most of them would still resort to adding something to the effect of "well even if we were lied to, it was still worth getting rid of Saddam" after front loading how they were lied to.
So this time the big "gotcha" bit of smugness will still be about how "evil Russia has always been". So it will be still considered America helping "protect freedom" is the "correct" and "moral" choice (even with the price tag that would never be treated as "sooo important" for helping poor US citizens at home). Hell, they still like to call the FSB the KGB. So real "lessons" will not matter outside the same talk but no actions shit they do every single time. They did all kinds of talking nice words for BLM protests (not the org), but their actions were to paint anyone that wasn't "correctly protesting" as bad and over-funded the pigs more. And the cycle continues.
"well even if we were lied to, it was still worth getting rid of Saddam"
I dont hear this very often from libs. Usually they say getting into Iraq at all was a bad idea altogether. But thats just my experience.
I really think a lot of that realization is due to the financial collapse of 2007-08 where a shit ton of people started pointing out how horrible the USA is.
Sadly that all seemed to die down when Obama hired that ferry guy to male him some low effort campaign posters that everyone wet their pants over.
It'll be like conservatives with Vietnam: a stab in the back narrative (albeit less visceral due to it being a proxy war.)
we gotta start making flowcharts for the different stages of manipulative rhetoric they use as an issue progresses from background to forefront to background again
I think that they will continue to do the "russia was the aggressor" but they'll almost certainly start saying "we should have negotiated sooner, it was obvious we had bad intelligence (or, if we're lucky, 'it was obvious the media was lying') about how weak the russian army/economy was"
They're already hate eastern Europeans for being poor "white" people (the thing a liberal hates the most), and truly do not see how the west is responsible for this poverty. My whole life I've heard them mock the cheap, durable housing that was built throughout the USSR with no appreciation for this mass, collective effort to house everyone after a devastating war. It's almost like libs don't actually recognize these people as humans.
Even more apparent is their failure to connect fascism with capitalist collapse and false scarcity. Libs hate that there's visible fascists in eastern Europe, but think it's an individual failing of these unenlightened people, not an obvious consequence of the west winning the so-called cold war.
These currents in liberal thought are so strong, and have been so prominent for decades, that I would say there's no chance of reconsidering the narrative that is essentially bad things happen because Russia exists.
Edit: A lot of libs I think ultimately found the racism directed towards Muslims and Middle easterners to be unseemly, and this was a good starting point for reanalysis. I don't see Slavs and their neighbors getting that same treatment.
I think it's gonna be more like how cons dealt with Iraq. They eventually will just say it was bad strategy, we should have just started WW3 essentially. They will not examine it to understand that is what they are saying, but it will be a tragic failure of NATO not being strong or something like that.
The libs will still be anti-Russian in general, but the state and the media will definitely pull a 180 when Ukrainian neo-nazis begin their campaigns of violence across Europe, the libs will then pretend they never normalized global neo-nazism and decry Ukrainians in the same strident tone they currently decry Russians
The blowback from this war will be hideous and the libs are going to be extremely obnoxious about it the whole time, I suspect by 2025 the libs will all become Polish nationalists and start accusing the "tankies" of being neo-Nazis apologists for opposing the deportation and liquidation of every Ukrainian refugee for the actions of Nazis that libs armed, that's the level of absurdity I'm expecting
Get ready for the whiplash
We'll also see many people justify the neo-Nazis, by saying they're necessary to weed out communists and get rid of immigrants in Europe.
Libs will probably be both defending the nazis and also denouncing them, depending what makes them look good in that moment.
get rid of immigrants in Europe.
I think this bit would heavily depend on the lib lol. I guess I can see a case where as the refugee crisis worsens more and more libs become more openly anti-refugee (scratch a liberal ect) but the ones I'm generally talking about in these threads are the "refugees are welcome" type of lib.
"weed out communists" also depends on the level of ideological commitedness probably.
They will not because they see Russia as the main reason why Trump became president instead of Clinton. "Russia kinda had a point in the invasion" will never be accepted by them. They desire the complete destruction of the Russian Federation, and when it becomes clear that the invasion is not leading to the downfall of the Russian state anytime soon, they will not only not come to see the truth but double down on their delusions. As the US and the rest of the west continues to decline, cope about Russia collapsing any day now will blend with cope about China collapsing any day now.
Gen alpha libs will. They'll say that "X conflict we're supporting is unlike America's past mistakes such as Ukraine, which is ancient history."
The year is 2034 and as generation alpha prepare to restore democracy to Mexico the keyboard warriors explain why it’s totally different to Ukraine.
Very optimistic of you to think it'll take as long as 2034.
I saw Trump Derangement Syndrome afflicted libs who froth at the mouth and gnash their teeth at the mere mention of his name become reasonable, rational and bipartisan when mention comes up regarding Trump potentially invading Mexico or Venezuela. Adolf Hitler could literally eke out a victory and libs would be ready to set aside their differences when the matter of invading nations the newspaper tells them are bad comes up.
Gen alpha libs will. They'll say that "X conflict we're supporting is unlike America's past mistakes such as Ukraine, which is ancient history."
I work with a lib who I probably won't still be working with in about ten years time (our company has high turnover) who will absolutely be like this, and he's in his mid-30's. At best he's going to agree that Ukraine was a mistake (although I doubt it) although instead will most likely still defend the decisions with Ukraine as 'do you agree that Putin is bad?'; this guy says he's against US empire, but any lengthy discussion with him will reveal that no he doesn't really oppose the military decisions of the US. 'He was no angel' will be the prevailing argument every single time; never mind that the lives of the people in countries that get invaded or suffer intervention just get far worse. He lacks a ton of knowledge regarding the wars and interventions and receiving that knowledge does nothing to shake his unwavering faith in the goodness of the US government.
No because the US invaded Iraq and thus is basically impossible to ever defend. They will literally ALWAYS say Ukraine support was justified because Russia started the physical invasion that all the western news agencies reported. Anything that's more complicated than the Iraq invasion is going to be defended forever the same way they deliberately misinterpret Molotov-Ribbentrop, etc.
deliberately misinterpret Molotov-Ribbentrop, etc.
This is a good comparison I think, especially since when the invasion first started and I got into arguing with some libs in a small friend server I was in about it, the admin of the server brought up this very thing to justify the idea that Russia is always evil invasion country. I didnt have the material at the time to object to that idea. So my attempts to do so where met with "well I side with what the historians think". I left the server voluntarily after that but it was treated like a ban for awhile. They let me back and we just dont discuss the Ukraine War at all ever. Politics channel is kinda dead in general lately.
also very similar to the way the US puppet state in South Korea massacred Korean leftists and failed to comply with agreements for several years, and when the DPRK invades in 1950 the US went wild with the same "unprovoked" bullshit
Yeah, and I know people who buy this one too.
Another "small server I'm in" story (a different, but related one). Server owner has as strict rule about 9/11 jokes that I've been scolded for breaking before. OK fine. But one of his posters posted a meme that involved bombing North Korea, and I objected saying if we can't joke about 9/11 then we shouldnt be able to joke about that because that actually happened and a massive amount of people died ect ect.
Server admin said that that's different because 9/11 was an "unprovoked attack" (lol at it being unprovoked) while "Kim was being a new Hitler" (shorthand for "doing an invasion" I guess, all invasions the same I guess) and therefor the US was justified in bombing them (said civilian deaths are tragic but its still not the same). Luckily in that case his mods revolted against this decision, one because he thought "no jokes about tragedies means no jokes about tragedies" and the other because she agreed with more on a more political level even though she's still mostly a lib. So that decision got overturned and the meme got deleted and it was made clear you can't joke about that. So I "won" but it stuck with me that these are things people actually believe.
Their realization with Iraq is not "we shouldn't have supported the war", it is "we should be in charge of it, not GW Bush, who screwed it up by not going full Thomas Friedman SUCK ON THIS mode".
That is why Biden and Clinton supporting the Iraq war lost them zero votes in the Dem primary, since the libs don't blame them for the war because Bush is the one who fucked it up. Should have sent more troops!
As usual with broad sweeping claims like this, i think that heavily depends on the liberal in question. Though i do agree that liberals opinions on Iraq would be different if Gore had been president during it (though idk if Gore would have invaded Iraq or not)
Just look at Lib opinions on Lib wars like Libya and Syria. They still hold their imperialist chauvinist views after being proven monstrous and empowering jihadists. They will never turn on Obama or his actions, it's too core to their identity
Sure, but all those same libs then supported Libya, Yemen etc. So their intentions are clear. They consider Libya a success because all the goals were achieved.
I don't know but I intend to blame every supporter of the war for killing 500k people both russian and ukrainian with bloodthirsty nationalism. I will not let it go. They will respond "Putin's war". I will continually repeat that they are nationalists that sent all of these people to their deaths over lines on a map. Some of them might realise their own nationalism, maybe.
The only way a dent gets made in any of this in the long term is by chipping away at american nationalism. Otherwise they'll just do the same thing for the next war which totally won't be just like all the others.
If significant blowback happens then you'll see people start to turn in large quantities.
I don't know but I intend to blame every supporter of the war for killing 500k people
Another key reason it's different - US troop involvement. A bipartisan part of anti Iraq war movements was the 'save our troops' angle, lamenting the poor American soldiers who stepped on mines while destroying Iraq.
Ukraine, with it's new labour laws, and banderite sympathies will be either be under Ukrainian control a derelict country of exploited people, many scarred physically and mentally by war, with no social safety net. They will undergo an 'economic miracle' and the libs will say job done, when the miracle is really just further reappropriation of wealth to the rich through cheap labour. The top 1% and foreign 'investors' will make millions while the people starve. Under Russian control, probably much the same, but with a fuse lit, ticking away until the war starts again with new funding. The cycle may repeat.
we can manage imperialism more competently!
