this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
240 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15990 readers
1 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 18 points 2 years ago (10 children)

Nazis are in Ukraine, and Nazis are bad people that should be stopped.

Russia is using this as an excuse for a shameless land grab.

These are not mutually exclusive statements.

IMO, it really wouldn't be all that different to the US using the cartels as an excuse to invade Mexico and slurp up some new land. And yeah, I'm aware that Republicans are already talking about it, because they just can't stop themselves from any% speedrunning the worst takes possible. To be completely frank, I wonder if Russia would keep giving a shit about the Nazis once they've taken the land. IIRC, like basically everyone else right now, Russia itself has an embarrassingly bad Nazi problem, so maybe Russia will invade Russia next.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 92 points 2 years ago (27 children)

I don’t want to put a bunch of preludes and explain myself etc.

But man, you really think Russia invaded because of a “land grab”? Does that make any sense to you?

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 100 points 2 years ago

The Russian Federation, famously short on land

[–] KarlBarqs@hexbear.net 32 points 2 years ago (2 children)

To be somewhat fair, all of Russia's claims in Ukraine (Crimea, the Donbas) would give them unparalleled access to the Sea of Azov and the northern banks of the Black Sea. Yes, I know they control a significant portion of the Black Sea already, but this would allow them to wrap the Sea of Azov nicely.

I know Russia states they're there to kick the Nazis out of the Donbas and protect the Russian language minority in that region, but I also don't believe any nation, especially a very nationalistic, neoliberal government like Russia's, is out doing something out of the goodness of their hearts. Call me a cynic, but I think the expanded Black Sea control is more important to the government.

[–] egg1918@hexbear.net 25 points 2 years ago

I see the expanded Black Sea control as a way to sure up control of Crimea. If they didn't then the only physical connection between Crimea and the rest of Russia would be the bridge, which has shown to be quite vulnerable.

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 22 points 2 years ago

It's literally just to stop NATO expansion, protecting Russian speakers in Ukraine is just an incidental political benefit

The "warm port" and "land grab" theories are pure nonsense that ignore the last 8 years of Eastern European history

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] Tachanka@hexbear.net 72 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nazis are in Ukraine, and Nazis are bad people that should be stopped

Yes.

Russia is using this as an excuse for a shameless land grab.

It's much more complex than this. One must understand the civil war, NATO expansion, as well as the cultural difference between Lviv, and Donbass/Luhask. With Kyiv kind of caught in the middle politically between them. Most importantly one must understand All of the things NATO could have done to prevent this.

Lviv was part of Poland. It became part of Ukraine when Germany/USSR both invaded Poland in 1939. It was historically Polish. Today Lviv is actually a hotbed of nazi apologia. Most of the monuments to nazi collaborators like Bandera and Stetsko are in Lviv. Many of the right wing militias are active in Lviv. Donbass Luhask was historically part of Russia, not part of Ukraine. During the early soviet period Lenin incorporated Donbass/Luhask into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (rather than making it part of the Russian part of the USSR). During the soviet period this was fine, but after the Soviet union collapsed, and Ukraine SSR became Ukraine, the white supremacists and nazis (Groups like C14, Right Sektor, Azov Battalion, and their predecessors like the Social-National Party of Ukraine) began to push for policies against Roma, Jews, and ethnic Russians. This meant a lot of ethnic tensions with Donbass/Luhask which has a lot of people who speak Russian, as well as Roma and Jews. This led to separatist movements in Donbass/Luhask/Crimea. People in those regions who speak Russian and identify as Russian, and before Lenin, were part of the Russia rather than Ukraine, felt like they would be safer with their own Republics, or in Russia, than they would be in Ukraine. Crimea held a referendum to become part of Russia in 2014. This received over 90% support. NATO/Ukraine media said it was a rigged vote. Russian media said it wasn't. Russia then occupied Crimea to nominally enforce the referendum. This was called a land grab by NATO, it was called democratic support of a referendum by Russia. This kicked off separatist movements in Donbass/Luhask. The Ukrainian government then started a civil war against Donbass/Luhask to keep these territories as part of Ukraine. Donbass declared their own republic and so did Luhask. The Ukrainian Armed Forces committed a massacre in a trade union hall in Odessa 2014, burning a lot of separatists alive. They also began shelling separatist regions. There were a lot of civilian deaths, and Ukrainian right began to further radicalize, while receiving money/weapons/training through the NED (a CIA front) The civil war went on for 8 years.

In 2014, you also had what many believed to be a US-backed coup that put Petro Poroshenko into power. Petro Poroshenko rehabilitated a lot of the nazi collaborators from WW2, granting them hero status, and allowing more monuments to be built to them. He also cozied up with the radical right wing militias and incorporated them into the regular armed forces. He also advocated Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine joining NATO was always Russia's "red line" since Ukraine shares a border close to Moscow, and NATO membership means the USA can build military bases in your country, train your troops, put nuclear weapons in your country, etc. Russia doesn't want American nukes right on the doorestep of its capital, and so finally, after 30 years of eastward NATO expansion, resolved to intervene in the Ukrainian civil war, to make weaken Ukraine, and make it more of a burden for NATO. This is why NATO hasn't allowed Ukraine to become a member.

There's also the matter of NATO expansion in general. Informal promises were made to Gorbachev in 1991 (which were declassified by the British much later) that NATO wouldn't expand eastward if he dissolved the USSR and the Warsaw pact. He did so. But NATO kept expanding anyway. Russia tried to join NATO in 2002 but were rejected, which could have prevented the perception, on the part of the Russian government, that Moscow is being encircled by NATO. Since they aren't allowed to be part of the collective security apparatus of the North Atlantic alliance, but the North Atlantic alliance keeps expanding to surround their borders, it was only a matter of time before they started to see this as a war-worthy provocation. Also the USSR tried to join NATO back in 1954, at the beginning of the Khrushchev thaw, but were also rejected, leading to the formation of the Warsaw pact in 1955, which was the Soviet answer to NATO. So there were a lot of changes to prevent this flare up of regional tensions. But I believe the USA never wanted to prevent tensions from flaring up. I believe the USA saw this as another war they could profit from by selling weapons, since it takes place far from their borders.

I blame Capitalism first, NATO/USA second, Russia third, Ukraine last. The nazi problem in Ukraine is (mostly) a byproduct of CIA-backed radicalization efforts in my opinion. Every country has right wing psychos, but only some of them come to power by getting money, weapons, and training clandestinely from the USA. I also view this as a European repeat of operation cyclone, which is where the USA gave money/training/weapons to Jihadists in Afghanistan to destroy the soviet-allied government there and bait the soviets into a costly occupation. I also view this as an extension of the cold war into the 21st century, except it's now an economic conflict between the imperial core and the rising 2nd world (China/Russia) rather than a conflict between Capitalism and Communism. USA was also motivated to get rid of Nordstream 2. America wants to sell its liquid natural gas to europe at exorbitant prices, but europe is getting it for much cheaper through the Russians. Even with the sanctions, Europe is still buying Russian gas through the backdoor of India.

invade Mexico and slurp up some new land.

lol wait until you find out how Texas became a US state

[–] Bnova@hexbear.net 43 points 2 years ago

This is all fair and I can't dispute it, but have you considered that all of it is Russian propaganda?

smuglord

[–] Rod_Blagojevic@hexbear.net 63 points 2 years ago

Ok. But if NATO is gonna continue to arm nazis in Ukraine I think the people of Russia can have a buffer between them.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 58 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Nazis are in Ukraine, and Nazis are bad people that should be stopped.

This is an official regiment of the Ukrainian army.

Not just "nazis are in ukraine".

[–] RyanGosling@hexbear.net 26 points 2 years ago

Lol 3 Nazi symbols on their flag. They couldn’t fit anymore?

[–] Buchenstr@hexbear.net 48 points 2 years ago

This narrative falls apart when you consider the fact russia was wanting peace around the start of march, and part of this peace deal was that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO, but all the occupied land (excluding Crimea for you shitlibs there who think it is part of ukraine.) But Ukraine rejected it, since they want a regime change in russia, and control of crimea.

The narrative that the capitalists of russia would give up their most lucrative money making scheme (selling oil to the guzzling westerners) for a brutal war just to gain bombed out cities its completely devoid of historical materialist analysis, the capitalist would never chose an option which would hurt their profits if it didn't force them to.

Honestly seeing leftists repeat this propaganda is disappointing, and I'm going to repeat this. You can criticise Russia, without having to use liberal-imperialist propaganda like "warm water-ports" or "occupying ukraine" or even a simple name like putler. The fact is, ukraine was conducting an extremely brutal war on separatist countries all because they seek their simple right for self-determination after their autonomy was rejected. This war came about because the west are paranoid imperialists who want to salt the earth.

And the de-Nazification comes from more of a cultural standpoint rather than an actual struggle against fascism itself, this part is true. But seriously they have more of nazi problem than ukraine? Which literally has an ex-president who's an open Nazi and wears Nazi Imagery? I find this extremely hard to believe.

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 41 points 2 years ago

Russia is using this as an excuse for a shameless land grab.

This literally just ignores the entire history of the Minsk agreements and Russian-Ukraine relations between 1991-2014, also the fact there's been a brutal civil war on Russia's border for the last 8 years

[–] RyanGosling@hexbear.net 40 points 2 years ago (3 children)

IMO, it really wouldn't be all that different to the US using the cartels as an excuse to invade Mexico and slurp up some new land.

There’s no need to make up scenarios. The US already did this with Cuba, Africa, and the Middle East. Mr. Putler is just inspired by American policies like his predecessor Hitler

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 30 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Mr. Putler is just inspired by American policies like his predecessor Hitler

how is Putin a successor to Hitler. Putin is not a nazi he's not a good person but he is not a fascist

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] sooper_dooper_roofer@hexbear.net 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Mr. Putler

"Chinazi" vibes

[–] jackmarxist@hexbear.net 22 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Honestly not a bad take compared to many others I've seen regarding this shit show. Russia doesn't really give a shit about Nazism in Ukraine and is using this war to secure it's strategic assets around the region that had been in under Russian/Soviet control for centuries before the breakup of the USSR. 2014's coup threatened any sort of cooperation in Crimea and hence Russia proceeded to annex it.

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 22 points 2 years ago

I think they do care a little bit in that for the last 8 years those nazis have been engaged in a civil war right next to the Russian border and believe that ethnic Russians are inferior. Russia doesn't need to be ruled by saints to be annoyed at that turn of events