5
Fuck Ukrainian Azov Nazis and fuck anyone who defends them
(www.thenation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)
news
23521 readers
675 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I often see criticism of Ukraine lumped in with Russian justifications for invasion, in which case, the war is also warping your views.
The US got heat from other supporters of Ukraine for that even. Russia is also using them. Further cause to support peace negotiations.
Especially because the actual reason Russia invaded wasn't over any concern about ethnic Russians in Ukraine (that's literally one of the oldest bullshit excuses for war) was to prevent NATO from being on it's borders, and now Finland and Sweden have joined, so Russia's already lost the geopolitical battle. All they're fighting for now is dirt.
The Baltics have been in NATO since 2004, so Russia already had NATO on its border. Plus Poland on Belarus's border. It's not about having NATO on their border in general, it's about having NATO in Ukraine specifically. Finland and Sweden joining means nothing.
But Ukrainian bombing of the Donbass absolutely was a factor as well. For 8 years Russia tried the diplomatic route to get them to stop, but despite signing agreements, Ukraine just ignored them and kept bombing anyway.
The baltic route to invading Russia is a lot more difficult than the Ukrainian route. Ukraine was always the "red line" for them because of the topography, and the closeness to moscow. Also they were pissed when the baltics joined. The brits declassified that informal promises were made to Gorbachev (ugh....) to not expand NATO eastward in March 1991 if he dissolved the USSR. Of course these informal promises weren't in writing and were never kept. the USA denied they were ever made, but luckily the brits declassified
Really no one should be shocked that an informal promise wasn't honored. If a legally binding treaty can still be ignored by a sovereign power, informal promises are always worthless and no one should be pointing to them and going "but they promised!"
Yes. Gorbachev was a clown who got clowned upon. Still, I think it's worth mentioning, because it reveals that the West was always willing to be deceptive about NATO expansion, and what the role of NATO actually is (i.e. it is not a "defensive" alliance but a reactionary alliance of imperial core countries to protect the superprofits afforded by imperialism and neocolonialism)
I mean, it is literally a defensive alliance if only because if one country is attacked, the others are legally obliged to treat it as an attack on them. It is then also an alliance of Imperial core countries (it was after all, founded in response to the Warsaw Pact).
It is indeed worth mentioning, but I don't think it's worth framing it as some sort of public promise that was walked back.
It was NOT founded in response to the Warsaw pact. NATO was formed in 1949. The Warsaw Pact was founded in 1955. The Warsaw pact was founded in response to NATO. NATO was building up West Germany economically less than 10 years after the fucking holocaust. The Soviet Union tried to join NATO in 1954 and was told "no, you aren't democratic enough." But they had no problem letting West Germany in while integrating "former" nazis like Adolf Heusinger into their command structure.
less than a third of NATO countries were admitted to NATO through some kind of democratic referendum. It was almost always the unilateral decision of the given country's bourgeois class, rather than something the people themselves were consulted on. In the cases where democratic referendums were held, it was often in countries that had just been balkanized (former Yugoslav countries, for example), or countries that were just at the outskirts of NATO and were therefore pressured geopolitically into choosing whose "sphere of influence" they were under: Russian federation, or USA. When a nation is compelled under duress to pick sides like that, and a class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is the one that usually ends up making the decisions, I doubt the alliance can reasonably be called "defensive." Its borders keep expanding to encircle and balkanize nations whose main "crime" was being socialist Once Upon A Time. NATO expansion is marching us towards WW3. It is an expansionist and aggressive alliance that merely uses Article 5 to appear defensive and Democratic, while trying its hardest to constantly provoke wars and lay claim to natural resources.
Is the following something a "defensive" alliance does?
oil and wheat are just “dirt”? millions of civilians who were bombed by the Ukrainian government for the past decade are “dirt”? even if it is just “dirt”, its dirt that provides the perfect launching ground for a land invasion of Russia. NATO is the Nazi Arming Terrorist Organization and anyone fighting against them will have critical support from most of the world (no, the west is not all that exists; most of the world is or has been colonized by the west)
show me where Russians attacked Ukrainian civilians from 2015-2021 (dont show me Russia funding separatists as evidence, the DPR and LPR have the right to defend their right to self determination). you can say “it was a war” all you want, it doesnt change the fact that there was a ceasefire agreement that was consistently violated by Ukraine.
what do you think Russian leadership wanted? bc it looks like the DPR and LPR, as well as most of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, are occupied by Russia. and Zelenskyyy was supposed to be the “peace and neutrality” candidate, yet he was working towards joining NATO. the Ukrainians west of the Dnieper were already primed to join NATO, the war didnt change anything.
and what are those bs identity politics abt “Ukrainian national identity”? lets focus on material reality, not these flimsy ideas invented to justify imperialism and ur guesses on what Putin thinks abt them
yummy western propaganda!!
no, Ukraine and the west have empowered (and armed) nazis for 90 years! and now you rely more on western propaganda and all their unfounded claims of atrocities. let’s focus on what we have proof for— the Ukrainian use of cluster munitions against civilians in the Donbas, Ukrainian pogroms and segregation against the Roma people, and state suppression of the Russian language. and what is wrong with you saying “pffft” regarding genocidal actions?
lol you are the one isolated from reality. the world sees what the west is blind to. when the fighting is over and Russia still governs 4 previously Ukrainian oblasts, come here again and say the invasion is “strategically idiotic”, it will be funnier then.
this IS a war against NATO. and it was started by NATO. and it can be ended by NATO right now— Russia is open to peace negotiations
this is a ridiculous double standard. if we're going to talk about NATO pulling the strings of Ukraine, we don't get to pretend the separatists were authentic grassroots movements unaffected by Russian military involvement in their affairs. and whether or not you 'count' the separatists as russian-proxy, they did kill civilians. the ceasefire & it's breaking are still pertinent details but it's wrong to characterize the warfare as one-sided
this is true and obvious, it's a much larger and more intense war. western propaganda does emphasis on russia's crimes, denies ukraines, & spins tales of russia's 'genocidal' intentions, but the wide scale suffering & thousands of civilian deaths are real. it's why the war needs to end as quickly as possible.
im not denying separatists were influenced by Russia, but sending arms to a separatist group is nothing compared to directly attacking civilian centers. is a third party sending weapons to Hamas comparable to the actions of Israel? should we condemn those who send weapons to Houthi rebels?
a subjective assessment is “true and obvious”? no western spin will change the fact that this war is one of western expansion and the people of the Donbas were facing ethnic cleansing from Ukraine. the war could end today if Ukraine and NATO were willing to negotiate reasonably.
ah sorry i had no idea i have to spell out exact numbers of combatants, casualties, displaced persons, and length/area of combat zones or it's "subjective". don't be obtuse, this isn't western spin to say more people are getting hurt in the expanded war than were in the Donbass.
when the separatists you arm & operate your military alongside hit a civilian target with those weapons you do have a measure of culpability. just like NATO has responsibility for the weapons they've given ukriane.
its not abt numbers. on one hand is the ethnic cleansing of civilians during an agreed upon ceasefire, on the other is a war between two modern armies. trying to compare the two is obtuse.
this is not materialist. numbers & scale matters. a murder is not the same as a mass murder. a different legal framework doesn't magically make a many times increase in human suffering and death irrelevant and incomparable to the smaller-scale violence earlier in the same conflict.
we're leftists, right? we agree that social murder is an aspect of capitalist society, but the capitalist legal system does not recognize this. we're capable of separating material effects of policy from their legal definitions. i'd urge you to focus less on the legal character of the war and more on material effects on people. legalism is a tool the ruling class uses that obscures & excuses human suffering in our society. the civilians in the donbass were excused by the ukrainians with legal definitions of traitors or dissidents, as russians who were not part of the state & not deserving protections. i don't accept that and i won't accept fictions about scopes of operation and who is technically aggressing whom, when a kid gets their leg blown off by a mine that is a life permanently changed or erased whichever legalese you slap on it.
its not abt legal framework, its attacks on civilians vs attacks on combatants. numbers dont make these comparable, they are too entirely different
Russia has attacked civilian targets and infrastructure.
"OHCHR verified a total of 9,444 civilian deaths during Russia's invasion of Ukraine as of August 13, 2023. Furthermore, 16,940 people were reported to have been injured"
you're still making a legalistic distinction "attacks on civilians" vs. "attacks on combatants" these attacks on "combatants" clearly contain civilian deaths, ~~so what actually is the difference to you besides who's doing the murder?~~ e: this is combative, not how i intended it. but i think the fact of civilian deaths emerging from the category of 'attack on combatant' is very destabilizing for using that as a discrete category from 'attack on civilian', is it not?
im going to disengage after this bc i dont think either of us have anything to gain by continuing. i do respect ur opinion on this tho, and even tho i have some disagreements, i also agree with much of what youve said and dont think our difference in opinion is a dealbreaker.
the last rebuttal ill give is this: combatants and civilians are materially different— one has and is using weapons. and intentional civilian attacks have a higher rate of success than accidental civilian attacks, so intent matters. also the supposed russian attacks on civilian targets are spurious and fog of war makes it difficult to make value judgements at this time. what i was focusing on is what we know: the situation in the Donbas before February 2022.
thank you for ur input, its helpful to have differing views heard to prevent this place turning into an echo chamber
Ukraine certainly likes to destabilize it: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/19/zrjy-j19.html
i straight up used ukraine's violence against civilians as an example earlier in the thread
Obviously they do that to, but my point there was specifically the human shield thing
A measure of culpability, as compared to the bad faith characterization of full-scale offensive war that lib is making.