|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On March 11 2023 09:35 Malongo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2023 08:54 JimmiC wrote:On March 11 2023 08:18 Malongo wrote:On March 11 2023 02:57 KwarK wrote:On March 11 2023 01:55 Malongo wrote:On March 10 2023 23:46 JimmiC wrote:
Thanks for a small taste of the human cost, sometimes it almost feels like talking about a strategy game and yet the human impact is so massive and heart breaking.
Far right or left need to be able to see that there is no grand conspiracy by capitalists or globalists. It is Putin wanting more power and territory, he thinks of himself as a emperor. Any news source, meme or whatever someone is reading where they are hearing anything positive about Putins war, or negative about the western support of this war, discount everything from that source and find new better places to get your news.
This iis clear evil from Putin and his higher ups, end stop. I think the situation is far more complex than just one or the other. There may not be a global conspiracy but there are certainly enterprises in the west that benefit from the war. The same goes for the Russian president, he may want more power, territory and bunch of other stuff but he is not fighting a war alone. Not only he managed to get the Russian people on board, he managed to get Belarus to some degree and Iranian drones. Things are just not black and white. Belarus was occupied by Russian troops years ago and is still occupied. It’s not independent. Iran is busy killing girls for not wearing hats. This is not a coalition of countries that all have valid perspectives on good vs evil. You wouldn’t argue that the fact that Japan and Germany found common cause in WW2 makes them morally grey. Putting two assholes in the same room doesn’t create ambiguity about whether they’re assholes. Idk where are you going with that but I find it hard to believe any country whatsoever can claim to hold the one "valid perspective on good vs evil". Pretty easy rule of thumb is the one committing continued war crimes and attacking civilians is the bad guy, you do not need to over think it. It takes not much critical thinking to know that when you are far right and saying you need to kill Nazi's and then it swaps to killing satanists, you are not being honest. Whatever you are reading that leads you to believe that there are two sides just stop reading it and find a new news source. There are plenty out there so pick the one that best fits you, but that anything that claims Russia is not in the wrong, far right or far left is likely funded by Russia or just taking advantage of you for clicks and easy money. It is not giving you good information. If you are quite right, why do you agree with the Antifa guys? And if you are quite left, why would you agree with Nazi's? I'm sorry you were tricked, but realize you have been and move on. Lol so I was tricked because I think there is more to the story than just Russia attacking Ukraine because some evil madman. Funny enough I am not right nor left and definitively not center. But something tells me you are not willing to accept or understand that. I wonder how people get so patronizing as to tell others what to read or not, I bet there is a point in which even the stupid can stop.
Take a moment to reflect on the fact that in a post calling someone out for being patronizing, you started with “Lol…”
|
On March 11 2023 10:12 Falling wrote:
You are catching a lot of heat because aggressive neutrality/ the truth must always be in the middle is not actually a nuanced position in the context where there is a clear aggressor without provocation. (If Ukraine had lobbing missiles across their border prior to the invasion, we'd have another story.)
For instance, do you take this the truth is somewhere in the middle, no fault approach to Mussolini's invasion into Ethiopia? Like "There may not be a global conspiracy but there are certainly enterprises in the west that benefit from the Italian war in Ethiopia... it's not black and white."
Or perhaps the Belgian colony in the Congo. I don't support either side. I have sympathy for the victims, but history is complex and Leopold II might have had a point?
I didn't read it as a "truth must be in the middle" but that the insistence on the "good vs. evil" framing is both silly and another iteration of the persistent US trope of being the hero coming to the rescue of freedom and democracy from an evil despot and only terrible/ignorant people would question that.
Ukrainians presumably took the risk of violently overthrowing their government and pissing off Putin with the belief that it would ultimately improve their quality of life. It hasn't for millions of Ukrainians over the last ~decade and there's no guarantee it will any time soon.
I can't say for sure myself, but it's not unreasonable to consider that many Ukrainian civilians could have had a better quality of life for the last ~decade (+however long the war/recovery takes) if they hadn't violently overthrown their government and pissed off Putin to his limit.
None of that justifies Putin's actions, but it's obviously more complex than the simplistic "West/Ukraine=good, Russia=evil" most people want to file it under imo.
|
United States43271 Posts
On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2023 10:12 Falling wrote:
You are catching a lot of heat because aggressive neutrality/ the truth must always be in the middle is not actually a nuanced position in the context where there is a clear aggressor without provocation. (If Ukraine had lobbing missiles across their border prior to the invasion, we'd have another story.)
For instance, do you take this the truth is somewhere in the middle, no fault approach to Mussolini's invasion into Ethiopia? Like "There may not be a global conspiracy but there are certainly enterprises in the west that benefit from the Italian war in Ethiopia... it's not black and white."
Or perhaps the Belgian colony in the Congo. I don't support either side. I have sympathy for the victims, but history is complex and Leopold II might have had a point?
I didn't read it as a "truth must be in the middle" but that the insistence on the "good vs. evil" framing is both silly and another iteration of the persistent US trope of being the hero coming to the rescue of freedom and democracy from an evil despot and only terrible/ignorant people would question that. Ukrainians presumably took the risk of violently overthrowing their government and pissing off Putin with the belief that it would ultimately improve their quality of life. It hasn't for millions of Ukrainians over the last ~decade and there's no guarantee it will any time soon. I can't say for sure myself, but it's not unreasonable to consider that many Ukrainian civilians could have had a better quality of life for the last ~decade (+however long the war/recovery takes) if they hadn't violently overthrown their government and pissed off Putin to his limit. None of that justifies Putin's actions, but it's obviously more complex than the simplistic "West/Ukraine=good, Russia=evil" most people want to file it under imo.
It took a lot of weird rationalizations and more fascism apologism than you’d normally go for but you finally found a revolution you disagree with.
|
United States43271 Posts
See the problem GH is with this weird framing as Ukraine having the initiative and somehow forcing this upon Putin who is being pushed, by Ukraine, to his limit. Lot of weird baggage there, lot of victim blaming, the limit is an odd choice of words as if having Ukraine outside Russian control would be beyond the limit. But it's really very simple.
Russia is the last of the great multiethnic colonial European empires. The Empire of Tsar Nicholas II remained undiminished as the USSR, outlasting both the British and French due to its unparalleled willingness to commit genocide against ethnic minorities (and its own people) on a degree that was beyond the tolerance of the west. The secret police in the USSR went far beyond anything in the liberal west in their brutality and thought control while the USSR committed ethnic cleansing on a scale that would make the British blush.
Putin lived through the fall of that empire and the separatist movements of the colonies that it had once dominated. Just as the Brits had to come to terms with Ireland's independence, so Russia had to come to terms with Ukraine's. And just as the Irish have some hard feelings over the whole colonial rule thing, so the Ukrainians don't love the manmade famines they endured. Putin is the Russian equivalent of one of those sad empire fetishists from Britain and France who spend their time dreaming of threatening smaller nations and carving the world up into spheres.
Unfortunately he's in power and he sees himself as a new Tsar with a mission to rebuild that empire. And you don't have to take my word for it, he openly proclaims as much in Russian propaganda. He insists that these lands belong as part of the Russian Empire, that they are historical Russian empire lands, that the people who live there have no ethnicity beyond that as Russian subjects, that they have no national identity or culture outside that of Russia. That they are incapable of governing themselves and that Russia has a moral responsibility to decide for them the best form of government. He is extremely clear on this point, the historical lands of the Russian Empire must be returned to Russian rule by force because they are not real nations, they are temporarily confused colonies.
They invaded Chechnya, Georgia, Belarus, and parts of Ukraine long before this started. There is absolutely nothing that Ukraine could have done to have avoided this. They're not pushing him anywhere, just as Ireland wasn't compelling Britain to invade it by existing as a Catholic country. They're doing their own thing and he's acting of his own volition.
You are defending european colonialism, and not even one of the cool empires that make technology and shit, one of the shit ones. Stop. It's sad, it's embarrassing, it's like you're simping for the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. If you're going to engage in this ridiculous historical revisionism where you carve the world up into spheres that belong to empires then at least simp for the US and insist that they would be wholly justified in seizing Cuba. The US is at least a first class empire.
There are a hundred different ways you could slip in "US bad" without repeating the brutal colonial apologist message of Putin being pushed into invading a sovereign state, or somehow being pissed off or provoked, or that they revolted against a legitimate Russian government. You could say that the US is just using them to damage a rival empire, or that the US is using them to get out of its commitments to defending Europe, or that they're using them to showcase arms for their military industrial complex, or that they just find it funny to watch Russians die. I'd disagree with some of those but at least you'd be on message, attacking the US rather than defending Russia. But instead you went full tankie and, to paraphrase Robert Downey Jr, you should never go full tankie.
|
On March 11 2023 11:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2023 10:12 Falling wrote:
You are catching a lot of heat because aggressive neutrality/ the truth must always be in the middle is not actually a nuanced position in the context where there is a clear aggressor without provocation. (If Ukraine had lobbing missiles across their border prior to the invasion, we'd have another story.)
For instance, do you take this the truth is somewhere in the middle, no fault approach to Mussolini's invasion into Ethiopia? Like "There may not be a global conspiracy but there are certainly enterprises in the west that benefit from the Italian war in Ethiopia... it's not black and white."
Or perhaps the Belgian colony in the Congo. I don't support either side. I have sympathy for the victims, but history is complex and Leopold II might have had a point?
I didn't read it as a "truth must be in the middle" but that the insistence on the "good vs. evil" framing is both silly and another iteration of the persistent US trope of being the hero coming to the rescue of freedom and democracy from an evil despot and only terrible/ignorant people would question that. Ukrainians presumably took the risk of violently overthrowing their government and pissing off Putin with the belief that it would ultimately improve their quality of life. It hasn't for millions of Ukrainians over the last ~decade and there's no guarantee it will any time soon. I can't say for sure myself, but it's not unreasonable to consider that many Ukrainian civilians could have had a better quality of life for the last ~decade (+however long the war/recovery takes) if they hadn't violently overthrown their government and pissed off Putin to his limit. None of that justifies Putin's actions, but it's obviously more complex than the simplistic "West/Ukraine=good, Russia=evil" most people want to file it under imo. It took a lot of weird rationalizations and more fascism apologism than you’d normally go for but you finally found a revolution you disagree with.
I don't even necessarily disagree with it. Though as I understand it, the actual violent overthrowing of the government in Ukraine was largely spearheaded by right wing extremists, so it wouldn't be surprising if I I had qualms.
It's not a weird perspective either, it's one of the most popular frameworks people use in consideration of revolution.
People can decide for themselves if the consideration that people's quality of life might be/have been better working for change within their existing governmental framework (as imperfect as it may be) rather than overthrowing their government and defending themselves in a war is "fascism apologism".
|
United States43271 Posts
On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ukrainians presumably took the risk
Implies that Ukrainians deserve any negative outcomes, robs Russia of any agency, after all, Ukrainians knew the risk
On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
pissing off Putin
Robs Russia of any agency, it's not their fault they invaded a sovereign nation, you see Ukraine pissed them off, Ukraine's fault
On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
to his limit.
Literal Kremlin talking point, their back was against the wall, their hands were tied, they didn't want this but what could they do
On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
violently overthrown
Their current government was democratically elected, do you hold anticolonial violence against all subsequent governments in all cases?
You're engaging in fascism apologism. Do better. That said, I'm open to the idea that you didn't even really think about how you've been framing this in your mind and where these words like risk and limit are coming from. That you're using these terms that were repeated over and over on tankie.net or wherever it is you get your opinions and didn't put much thought into them. In which case I'm sure you're mortified to see your own words and recognize that you've inadvertently become a fascist Kremlin mouthpiece when all you wanted to do was overthrow the US global capitalist world order. Maybe this could be a "what have I become" moment for you where you start to do some introspection about the opinions you're using to fill the space where yours used to be.
|
On March 11 2023 11:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ukrainians presumably took the risk Implies that Ukrainians deserve any negative outcomes, robs Russia of any agency, after all, Ukrainians knew the risk Robs Russia of any agency, it's not their fault they invaded a sovereign nation, you see Ukraine pissed them off, Ukraine's fault Literal Kremlin talking point, their back was against the wall, their hands were tied, they didn't want this but what could they do Their current government was democratically elected, do you hold anticolonial violence against all subsequent governments in all cases? You're engaging in fascism apologism. Do better. That said, I'm open to the idea that you didn't even really think about how you've been framing this in your mind and where these words like risk and limit are coming from. That you're using these terms that were repeated over and over on tankie.net or wherever it is you get your opinions and didn't put much thought into them. In which case I'm sure you're mortified to see your own words and recognize that you've inadvertently become a fascist Kremlin mouthpiece when all you wanted to do was overthrow the US global capitalist world order. Maybe this could be a "what have I become" moment for you where you start to do some introspection about the opinions you're using to fill the space where yours used to be. I don't believe Ukrainians deserve negative outcomes. I do believe Russia had/has agency in this. I don't believe Russia's hands were tied or even that an invasion/prolonged war was/is in their (even Putin's) best interests. I don't hold anticolonial violence against all subsequent governments.
That's what I think they were referencing though about the vilification of anyone audacious enough to say it's not as simple as good vs evil.
|
United States43271 Posts
On March 11 2023 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2023 11:55 KwarK wrote:On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ukrainians presumably took the risk Implies that Ukrainians deserve any negative outcomes, robs Russia of any agency, after all, Ukrainians knew the risk On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
pissing off Putin Robs Russia of any agency, it's not their fault they invaded a sovereign nation, you see Ukraine pissed them off, Ukraine's fault On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
to his limit. Literal Kremlin talking point, their back was against the wall, their hands were tied, they didn't want this but what could they do On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
violently overthrown Their current government was democratically elected, do you hold anticolonial violence against all subsequent governments in all cases? You're engaging in fascism apologism. Do better. That said, I'm open to the idea that you didn't even really think about how you've been framing this in your mind and where these words like risk and limit are coming from. That you're using these terms that were repeated over and over on tankie.net or wherever it is you get your opinions and didn't put much thought into them. In which case I'm sure you're mortified to see your own words and recognize that you've inadvertently become a fascist Kremlin mouthpiece when all you wanted to do was overthrow the US global capitalist world order. Maybe this could be a "what have I become" moment for you where you start to do some introspection about the opinions you're using to fill the space where yours used to be. I don't believe Ukrainians deserve negative outcomes. I do believe Russia had/has agency in this. I don't believe Russia's hands were tied or even that an invasion/prolonged war was/is in their (even Putin's) best interests. I don't hold anticolonial violence against all subsequent governments. That's what I think they were referencing though about the vilification of anyone audacious enough to say it's not as simple as good vs evil.
Glad to hear that on reflection you’re condemning the fascist apologist language you used an hour ago when you specifically placed the responsibility on Ukrainians, framed them as provoking Russia, framed Russia as pushed to the limit, and repeatedly invalidated their democratic government with vague allusions to violence.
Again, I sincerely hope you examine where those words came from and why it is that you typed them. Your ideological spaces have been specifically targeted by Russian psyops to shape the opinions of useful idiots. They didn’t appear in your post by accident but they’re not a good reflection of leftist ideology, it’s been co-opted.
|
On March 11 2023 12:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2023 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2023 11:55 KwarK wrote:On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ukrainians presumably took the risk Implies that Ukrainians deserve any negative outcomes, robs Russia of any agency, after all, Ukrainians knew the risk On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
pissing off Putin Robs Russia of any agency, it's not their fault they invaded a sovereign nation, you see Ukraine pissed them off, Ukraine's fault On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
to his limit. Literal Kremlin talking point, their back was against the wall, their hands were tied, they didn't want this but what could they do On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
violently overthrown Their current government was democratically elected, do you hold anticolonial violence against all subsequent governments in all cases? You're engaging in fascism apologism. Do better. That said, I'm open to the idea that you didn't even really think about how you've been framing this in your mind and where these words like risk and limit are coming from. That you're using these terms that were repeated over and over on tankie.net or wherever it is you get your opinions and didn't put much thought into them. In which case I'm sure you're mortified to see your own words and recognize that you've inadvertently become a fascist Kremlin mouthpiece when all you wanted to do was overthrow the US global capitalist world order. Maybe this could be a "what have I become" moment for you where you start to do some introspection about the opinions you're using to fill the space where yours used to be. I don't believe Ukrainians deserve negative outcomes. I do believe Russia had/has agency in this. I don't believe Russia's hands were tied or even that an invasion/prolonged war was/is in their (even Putin's) best interests. I don't hold anticolonial violence against all subsequent governments. That's what I think they were referencing though about the vilification of anyone audacious enough to say it's not as simple as good vs evil. Glad to hear that on reflection you’re condemning the fascist apologist language you used an hour ago when you specifically placed the responsibility on Ukrainians, framed them as provoking Russia, framed Russia as pushed to the limit, and repeatedly invalidated their democratic government with vague allusions to violence. Again, I sincerely hope you examine where those words came from and why it is that you typed them. Your ideological spaces have been specifically targeted by Russian psyops to shape the opinions of useful idiots. They didn’t appear in your post by accident but they’re not a good reflection of leftist ideology, it’s been co-opted.
You can frame it however and read into it whatever you like, but what we have is my explicitly conveyed beliefs vs what you interpreted to be implied by my word choice which I suggest is reflective of the reflexive "Oh so you support Saddam!?!?" type rhetorical refrain that was being referenced by Malongo in the first place. EDIT: also not so coincidentally connected to my earlier point about the US's incapacity to hold Russia accountable for war crimes, in part, because of the risk such a (frankly low bar, maybe high bar I guess?) precedent poses to US war criminals
|
United States43271 Posts
I’m not interpreting anything, you wrote that Ukraine provoked Russia and Russia was pushed to their limit. Do you stand by those words? I don’t think you do which is why I’m encouraging you to reflect on how they ended up in your post and in your views on the conflict.
All this anti-American stuff is your brand, that’s what I expect when I see a GH post. On March 11 2023 12:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
also not so coincidentally connected to my earlier point about the US's incapacity to hold Russia accountable for war crimes, in part, because of the risk such a (frankly low bar, maybe high bar I guess?) precedent poses to US war criminals But when I see Kremlin justification talking points mixed in it looks a lot like someone has been slipping their own material into your ideology.
It’s kind of like what happens with organic momgroups. They start off promoting home cooked meals and no artificial food colourings but the Nazis slip in some memes about fluoride and vaccines and before you know it they’re obsessed with the great replacement and Jewish secret governments.
GH got left wing QAnon’d by Russia and I’m hoping to shame him into recognizing that they snuck shit into his brain while he wasn’t watching.
|
On March 11 2023 12:55 KwarK wrote:
I’m not interpreting anything, you wrote that Ukraine provoked Russia and Russia was pushed to their limit. Do you stand by those words?
GreenHorizons is right, Ukraine deserved it, she was dressing too provocatively. She was flirting with self autonomy and that is not acceptable in the eyes of Russia. Or something
|
On March 11 2023 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2023 11:55 KwarK wrote:On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ukrainians presumably took the risk Implies that Ukrainians deserve any negative outcomes, robs Russia of any agency, after all, Ukrainians knew the risk On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
pissing off Putin Robs Russia of any agency, it's not their fault they invaded a sovereign nation, you see Ukraine pissed them off, Ukraine's fault On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
to his limit. Literal Kremlin talking point, their back was against the wall, their hands were tied, they didn't want this but what could they do On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
violently overthrown Their current government was democratically elected, do you hold anticolonial violence against all subsequent governments in all cases? You're engaging in fascism apologism. Do better. That said, I'm open to the idea that you didn't even really think about how you've been framing this in your mind and where these words like risk and limit are coming from. That you're using these terms that were repeated over and over on tankie.net or wherever it is you get your opinions and didn't put much thought into them. In which case I'm sure you're mortified to see your own words and recognize that you've inadvertently become a fascist Kremlin mouthpiece when all you wanted to do was overthrow the US global capitalist world order. Maybe this could be a "what have I become" moment for you where you start to do some introspection about the opinions you're using to fill the space where yours used to be. I don't believe Ukrainians deserve negative outcomes. I do believe Russia had/has agency in this. I don't believe Russia's hands were tied or even that an invasion/prolonged war was/is in their (even Putin's) best interests. I don't hold anticolonial violence against all subsequent governments. That's what I think they were referencing though about the vilification of anyone audacious enough to say it's not as simple as good vs evil.
But your post was quite explicitly putting forth your own opinion, not just reinterpreting what Malongo might have thought:
On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2023 10:12 Falling wrote:
You are catching a lot of heat because aggressive neutrality/ the truth must always be in the middle is not actually a nuanced position in the context where there is a clear aggressor without provocation. (If Ukraine had lobbing missiles across their border prior to the invasion, we'd have another story.)
For instance, do you take this the truth is somewhere in the middle, no fault approach to Mussolini's invasion into Ethiopia? Like "There may not be a global conspiracy but there are certainly enterprises in the west that benefit from the Italian war in Ethiopia... it's not black and white."
Or perhaps the Belgian colony in the Congo. I don't support either side. I have sympathy for the victims, but history is complex and Leopold II might have had a point?
I didn't read it as a "truth must be in the middle" but that the insistence on the "good vs. evil" framing is both silly and another iteration of the persistent US trope of being the hero coming to the rescue of freedom and democracy from an evil despot and only terrible/ignorant people would question that. Ukrainians presumably took the risk of violently overthrowing their government and pissing off Putin with the belief that it would ultimately improve their quality of life. It hasn't for millions of Ukrainians over the last ~decade and there's no guarantee it will any time soon.
Up until here we can be charitable: you are just explaining what Malongo might think. You don't think this yourself, although you are making excuses for Malongo, who should be perfectly capable of explaining his own actual opinion despite getting dogpiled.
But your post didn't end there, you continued:
I can't say for sure myself, but it's not unreasonable to consider that many Ukrainian civilians could have had a better quality of life for the last ~decade (+however long the war/recovery takes) if they hadn't violently overthrown their government and pissed off Putin to his limit.
None of that justifies Putin's actions, but it's obviously more complex than the simplistic "West/Ukraine=good, Russia=evil" most people want to file it under imo.
And here you definitely put forth your own thoughts on the matter, which are that Ukrainian people pissed off mother Russia and pushed papa Putin to their limit by violently overthrowing a corrupt regime. This repeats all the Russian propaganda talking points. It justifies the 2014 invasion where they *had* to step in to protect the rights of ethnic Russians (just as they had to in Chechnya and Georgia). If the US invaded Mexico on such flimsy grounds you'd be on the Mall protesting the unjust war, but for some reason, when Russia is the aggressor you're apologizing for them.and saying "but it's obviously more complex...". Is it? Are you sure?
Like... the only reason I can think of that the GH from the Supply thread would actually espouse the idea that Russia is remotely justified in invading Ukraine, is because you think Russia is spreading socialism and thus their actions are justified? In which case I think you'll need to explain why you think Russia is still a socialist experiment, and not a fascist empire with an identity crisis...
|
I didn't (and wouldn't) argue "Ukraine provoked Russia" for a variety of reasons.
I would say it's not unreasonable to recognize and take consideration of the reality that Russia/Putin (as well as some portion of their existing population, particularly in the east of their country) would disapprove of their revolution and what challenges/devastation that might entail. Many would argue it's irresponsible for people considering revolutions not to do so. I'd say the same sort of thing applies, and it is frequently argued that it does, for a revolution most know I support fervently.
As to "pissing off Putin" and "to his limit", I was just trying to describe the aforementioned disapproval Ukraine had to take into consideration to appropriately prepare for the potential ramifications (however heinous and unjust). Clearly my unambiguous statement that "none of this justifies Putin's actions" stopped people from interpreting that I was. Which again seems, at least to me, to be indicative of the truth in that part of Malongo's position.
|
United States43271 Posts
The unrest in the east of the country is just a retelling of Hitler’s playbook from the 1930s for reconquering the territory of the German Empire. You send brown shirts across the border to stir up trouble in the German speaking areas. Either they are successful in which you arrange for an organic local independence movement or they get treated as a hostile military force in which case you insist that German speakers are being oppressed. Either way you say that the instability discredits the local government and that you must intervene to safeguard order and protect your people.
It’s one of those things that is immediately obvious to anyone who studied the rise of Nazi Germany. The Donbas is Putin following the Nazi textbook for how you occupy a neighbour without declaring war.
|
GH: You’re saying that the fact that Ukraine could, to some extent, foresee Russia’s invasion renders resistance to the invasion morally dubious?
If a bully says, “Hey, GH, don’t wear your favorite jacket tomorrow or I’ll punch you in the face until you give me your lunch money,” is it morally dubious to defend yourself (and your money) when he starts punching you in the face after you show up in your favorite jacket?
|
Just to clarify. The argumentation that Ukrainians did in fact piss Putin off and that resulted in the invasion is perfectly accurate and carries no moral judgement. The argumentation that therefore the situation isn't black and white is the one that's controversial. In my view no matter how you look at it, Putin is the bully and Ukraine strictly isn't - that is regarding the invasion and the string of events leading up to it. In fact I consider Putin's actions to be so evil that I frequently have to catch myself from outright calling him evil (since I personally don't believe that people themselves can be evil, but their actions can). Meanwhile looking at Ukrainians I have a hard time seeing anything evil they could've done to deserve getting invaded.
|
On March 11 2023 14:21 KwarK wrote:
The unrest in the east of the country is just a retelling of Hitler’s playbook from the 1930s for reconquering the territory of the German Empire. You send brown shirts across the border to stir up trouble in the German speaking areas. Either they are successful in which you arrange for an organic local independence movement or they get treated as a hostile military force in which case you insist that German speakers are being oppressed. Either way you say that the instability discredits the local government and that you must intervene to safeguard order and protect your people.
It’s one of those things that is immediately obvious to anyone who studied the rise of Nazi Germany. The Donbas is Putin following the Nazi textbook for how you occupy a neighbour without declaring war.
I'm not even talking about all that there (though we can acknowledge there was plenty of opposition/people critical of Revolution of Dignity even several years afterwards). I'm talking about various peoples whose homes/cities are now rubble/Russian-held territory and had their lives destroyed/ended that maybe had a different tabulation (with a wide range of reasonings) on their cost benefit analysis when it comes to how they wanted to fix whatever problems they saw in their government/its impact on their lives (plenty of which obviously run deeper than Russia and Yanukovych) .
For instance, people living in the east of Ukraine who really wanted to remove Yanukovych and co. and see Ukraine welcomed into the EU, but some of which didn't feel as though all/enough potential options available in the existing (albeit far from perfect) political system had been sufficiently exhausted. Moreover, they were concerned about the safety of themselves near the eastern border and their loved ones in Crimea should such drastic measures (overthrowing rather than democratically ousting their government and not moving at a pace or to an end that is begrudgingly acceptable to Putin/Russia and better than the status quo) be taken. Not just concern for invasion, but concern about pockets of people around them that seem inexplicably supportive of the worst elements of the existing status quo/Russian influence and would likely viscerally react in dangerous and concerning ways to such a disruption (as well as less enthusiastic people that would just rather stand behind those people than in front of them).
Those peoples' support for ousting Yanukovych and embracing the EU that carries with it opposition to revolution isn't just because they are some stooge for Putin or apologists for fascism, but in some cases quite simply that they could see how revolution could very well be way worse for them and people they care about than an admittedly miserable status quo. Moral judgements about people like that (or the revolutionaries) aside, my point was simply that it's not an entirely unreasonable perspective, and it is in fact quite a popular one about revolutions generally.
Also that when such considerations are applied in this context it frequently evokes the reflexive "so you support evil!?!?"/victim blaming refrain and the reductive "good vs evil" framing that was referred to in Malongo's post
As someone that's possibly as offended by variations of this stuff in the context of centuries of US war crimes, systemic violence/abuse, rank exploitation, etc. as people are in this context, neither are as simplistic as a matter of good vs evil however much easier believing it is might make all this on any of us. Unlike the misplaced allegations against me being reductive about capitalism vs socialism being good vs evil, people are quite explicitly and ardently defending the premise that this time (as has generally always been the standard rhetoric in nearly every US endeavor) it is in fact a simple matter of good vs evil.
TLDR: I just respectfully disagree that reductive "good vs evil" framing should be applied here (or pretty much anywhere) and agree with the notion that arguing as much (in the context of Western foreign policy) is habitually met with unbecoming rhetoric meant to vilify its target as sympathetic to or a dupe for some malevolent entity, as I would say has been demonstrated here recently.
That's far more than I intended to wade into this and it'll probably be where I end my engagement on it for now.
|
To put an analogy: Putin is an abusive father locking up his teenage son in the basement for failing to study and going partying and doing drugs, and when the son tries to escape the basement he gets violently beaten into submission.
The father's actions are not evil because...?
|
On March 11 2023 17:42 Magic Powers wrote:
To put an analogy: Putin is an abusive father locking up his teenage son in the basement for failing to study and going partying and doing drugs, and when the son tries to escape the basement he gets violently beaten into submission.
The father's actions are not evil because...?
Except the teenage son isn't the teenage son, but just the neighbour.
|
On March 11 2023 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2023 10:12 Falling wrote:
You are catching a lot of heat because aggressive neutrality/ the truth must always be in the middle is not actually a nuanced position in the context where there is a clear aggressor without provocation. (If Ukraine had lobbing missiles across their border prior to the invasion, we'd have another story.)
For instance, do you take this the truth is somewhere in the middle, no fault approach to Mussolini's invasion into Ethiopia? Like "There may not be a global conspiracy but there are certainly enterprises in the west that benefit from the Italian war in Ethiopia... it's not black and white."
Or perhaps the Belgian colony in the Congo. I don't support either side. I have sympathy for the victims, but history is complex and Leopold II might have had a point?
I didn't read it as a "truth must be in the middle" but that the insistence on the "good vs. evil" framing is both silly and another iteration of the persistent US trope of being the hero coming to the rescue of freedom and democracy from an evil despot and only terrible/ignorant people would question that.
Nothing you have said added any nuance that made it any less "good vs. evil". You're like a Holocaust denialist who goes to great lengths to describe the global Jewish conspiracy that motivated Hitler.
Ukrainians presumably took the risk of violently overthrowing their government and pissing off Putin with the belief that it would ultimately improve their quality of life. It hasn't for millions of Ukrainians over the last ~decade and there's no guarantee it will any time soon.
I can't say for sure myself, but it's not unreasonable to consider that many Ukrainian civilians could have had a better quality of life for the last ~decade (+however long the war/recovery takes) if they hadn't violently overthrown their government and pissed off Putin to his limit.
None of that justifies Putin's actions, but it's obviously more complex than the simplistic "West/Ukraine=good, Russia=evil" most people want to file it under imo.
They reason why the Ukrainians chose to escape the Russian sphere of influence and do away with authoritarian kleptocracy can be summarised in one picture:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wjaZ3ab.jpg)
The Ukrainians saw that they are not different from the Poles and started to wonder why they can't be more like Poland (or the Baltics).
As for your comments on the Revolution of Dignity, for them to make sense you'd have to assume that it was somehow a planned coup (another Kremlin talking point). In reality, it was a grassroots initiative aimed at forcing Yanukovych to walk back on his broken electoral promise and sign the association agreement with the EU. Peaceful protests turned into a revolution after Yanukovych tried to violently suppress them by having masked thugs beat people up and the police kill several protesters. That's when he fled and was voted out by the parliament.
You're saying that the Ukrainians in 2014 should've factored in the possibility of a full-scale invasion by Russia almost a decade later. That alone is pretty silly, but it's also unrealistic because both the Ukrainians and the Russians at large considered an invasion impossible even days before it happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
