Honest question from a non-communist, based on your reply here. Does one need to support Putin to be a Marxist?
In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.
Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US. So now the support for Russia is in the context of keeping the colonizers from recolonizing it, and supporting Russia to the extent that it helps other states liberate themselves. But Russia isn’t trying to “liberate” Ukraine, at least not all of Ukraine. It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.
Consortium News, 2015: The Mess That Nuland MadeAssistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
Consortium News, 2023: The West’s Sabotage of Peace in UkraineFormer Israeli Prime Minister Bennett’s recent comments about getting his mediation efforts squashed in the early days of the war adds more to the growing pile of evidence that Western powers are intent on regime change in Russia.
George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev HeardDeclassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Would you say that you’re wearing imperialist clothes then for the tactical benefit, like a soldier on a secret mission disguised as the enemy?
Everyone understands Russia is correct to invade because NATO can’t be a neighbor, and that NATO is correct to “take” Ukraine because it’s possible and useful in keeping Russia in check. The problem is that this is imperialist logic. The common sense that runs the world of zero sum capitalists. The “think of the shareholders” of geopolitics.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the topic of Palestine and Israel, with strong support for the freedom and independence of Palestine and against the state of Israel.
I’m very thrown aback by your stance on the topic of Ukraine and Russia. In particular:
In a few more words, support for Russia … is only a partial, temporary, tactical one
To me, that is atrocious. It’s a bit like you see a bully beating another person to a pulp on the street, and you say you support this action as a partial, temporary, tactical support. Whichever great cause is set on a pedestal (such as supporting the bully in order for later to overthrow them, what could possibly go wrong), it is a crime to support it.
Right now, the best thing that can happen to Russia, I believe, is stopping the war. That is possible only if Russia as an aggressor country is stopped, and a peace treaty is forced on Russia, whether with Putin alive or not does not matter.
I have trouble processing this world view from an admin of lemmy.ml. I will need to take my time to process this information.
I don’t think it’s possible to look at the Russia-Ukraine war without considering the role of NATO. I care about ending this war which is devastating to working class people. I don’t think it’s a truthful analysis to say that Russia is just a big bully here who holds all the cards. If you look at Russia’s actions, most escalations on Russia’s side have been a reaction to actions from NATO. To think that more escalation from NATO will lead to a quicker end to the war is contrary to this historic pattern. Russia sees NATO as an existential threat, so it has a lot of motivation to keep fighting Ukraine to prevent NATO from spreading further to Russia’s border. NATO’s actions, to increase aggression towards Russia, only increase Russia’s motivation to keep fighting. If NATO were to pull back from Ukraine, make concessions to Russia that it will not expand further, and will allow Russia to trade and collaborate with European countries, then Russia has very little incentive to keep fighting Ukraine because they no longer see an existential threat. For Ukrainians it is devastating to be in the middle in this conflict, while not having any influence on the course of the war. But it’s a reality that I cannot change. All I can do is pressure my own government to work towards peace instead of continued aggression.
If you look at Russia’s actions, most escalations on Russia’s side have been a reaction to actions from NATO.
Is your argument reallly that Russia’s invasion is justified because Russia was provoked? So a good country that should be supported, totally has the right to invade another one if the other one is doing something not to your liking?
Russia sees NATO as an existential threat, so it has a lot of motivation
Who cares? I mean, it is a lie as the head of Russian state only really cares for money and power. But even if that would be true, that Russia would see NATO as an existential threat. Who cares? You should support Ukraine in its fight for existence and independence even if that pisses Russia. NATO or Ukraine have no obligation to please Russia.
On the contrary, Europe and other countries should take concrete actions to protect themselves. There is an obvious aggressor. If the aggressor sees your safety as their existential threat, and the aggressor is invading other countries, your only reasonable option is to be prepared to defend yourself and help others who are fighting for their existence and their independence. There’s no other choice unless your argument is “just give the aggressor what it wants, surely it’s gonna fix the problem”. And that in particular is very, very, very well studied to be wrong. An aggressor like that never stops given reduced resistance.
I’m not making any moral judgements. I care about ending the suffering that came from this war, and I think your analysis is based on wishful thinking and fantasy stories that you have been told about Ukraine and NATO. There’s too much for me to dissect to continue this conversation.
Your street bully analogy fails spectacularly at really understanding the conflict on a basic level. It treats a complex geopolitical struggle as a random act of individual malice, ignoring the historical trajectory and objective forces at play.
In 2014, the legitimately elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in a US-backed coup. The subsequent regime empowered nationalist elements as their virulent Russophobia made them a useful proxy for Western capital and NATO expansion.
This war is many things but it is categorically not an unprovoked assault on an innocent bystander. The new Kyiv government almost immediately launched a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the predominantly Russian-speaking population in the Donbass. The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015 expose this dynamic entirely. Kyiv repeatedly violated the terms, refusing to implement the political provisions regarding Donbass autonomy. Ceasefire violations were routine and the shelling of civilian infrastructure in the east continued for close to a decade.
This material reality forced the populations of Donetsk and Luhansk to organize their own defense. This led to the formation of the LPR and DPR, alongside Crimea moving to reunify with Russia. This civil conflict is the direct precursor to the current war.
Kyiv was deliberately cultivated as a geopolitical spearhead against Russia. To evaluate Russia’s response through the lens of abstract morality is to ignore objective conditions. Russia’s actions were a logical and foreseeable reaction to a hostile military infrastructure constructed on its border by a hegemonic power. You cannot isolate a single event from the chain of material cause and effect that produced it.
So you support Russia going to war on the territory of another country ~“because other countries did not leave it any choice” or so? The NATO that was mostly forgotten and dormant before Russian’s invasion and received a small fraction of its attention and funding now, that same NATO, just did not leave Russia any choice but to attack at all? And Russia absolutely could not avoid invading Ukraine, it just had to do it, in attempts to fix internal Ukranian problems, as perceived by Russia. Oh and the poor populations of Donetsk, legally and otherwise belonging to Ukraine, had to be invaded too and their lives are now improving?
What you’re saying is shameful. You’re not even giving Ukraine autonomy in your explanation of the “geopolitical struggle”. You’re saying “US” and “Russia”, but not “Ukranian people chose to _”.
I very specifically did not declare support or condemnation. Subjective moralizing is irrelevant to analyzing historical reality. Explaining the material causes of an event is not the same as endorsing it. My point was that Russia’s actions were a logical and foreseeable reaction to objective conditions, not that they operated with some metaphysical lack of choice.
Your claim that NATO was dormant or forgotten is historically illiterate. In the decade preceding this conflict, that same alliance bombed and destabilized multiple sovereign nations, including Libya and Afghanistan. It is not a defensive pact that suddenly woke up. It is an expanding military bloc.
Any state would perceive a foreign-backed coup and a hostile military buildup on its border as a direct threat. This is basic geopolitical reality, exactly as it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Expecting a major power to passively accept its border being turned into a staging ground for a rival hegemon is naive.
You speak of Ukrainian self-determination while offering blatant apologetics for the eight-year shelling of the Donbas and the suppression of Crimea. True autonomy was discarded in 2014. The majority of the Ukrainian population did not choose the current path of perpetual war and subordination to Western interests. That is precisely why a forceful coup was required to install the current regime, sparking the civil war that escalated into the current conflict.
Analyzing how and why events happen requires looking at material reality, not retreating into abstract ravings about street bullies and metaphysical musts.
why would you say something so uncontroversial yet so
bravesafeI want to ask a personal question, direct and no sarcasm, if that’s OK. A question to you and to @Dessalines.
Do you rather support Russia or Ukraine? Do you rather support Palestine or Israel?
I stand with the Palestinians without reservation and against the state of Israel.
As for Russia & Ukraine, here’s an info dump.
Previously:
Previously:
Previously:
Previously:
Would you say that you’re wearing imperialist clothes then for the tactical benefit, like a soldier on a secret mission disguised as the enemy?
Everyone understands Russia is correct to invade because NATO can’t be a neighbor, and that NATO is correct to “take” Ukraine because it’s possible and useful in keeping Russia in check. The problem is that this is imperialist logic. The common sense that runs the world of zero sum capitalists. The “think of the shareholders” of geopolitics.
Thank you for the answer.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the topic of Palestine and Israel, with strong support for the freedom and independence of Palestine and against the state of Israel.
I’m very thrown aback by your stance on the topic of Ukraine and Russia. In particular:
To me, that is atrocious. It’s a bit like you see a bully beating another person to a pulp on the street, and you say you support this action as a partial, temporary, tactical support. Whichever great cause is set on a pedestal (such as supporting the bully in order for later to overthrow them, what could possibly go wrong), it is a crime to support it.
Right now, the best thing that can happen to Russia, I believe, is stopping the war. That is possible only if Russia as an aggressor country is stopped, and a peace treaty is forced on Russia, whether with Putin alive or not does not matter.
I have trouble processing this world view from an admin of lemmy.ml. I will need to take my time to process this information.
I don’t think it’s possible to look at the Russia-Ukraine war without considering the role of NATO. I care about ending this war which is devastating to working class people. I don’t think it’s a truthful analysis to say that Russia is just a big bully here who holds all the cards. If you look at Russia’s actions, most escalations on Russia’s side have been a reaction to actions from NATO. To think that more escalation from NATO will lead to a quicker end to the war is contrary to this historic pattern. Russia sees NATO as an existential threat, so it has a lot of motivation to keep fighting Ukraine to prevent NATO from spreading further to Russia’s border. NATO’s actions, to increase aggression towards Russia, only increase Russia’s motivation to keep fighting. If NATO were to pull back from Ukraine, make concessions to Russia that it will not expand further, and will allow Russia to trade and collaborate with European countries, then Russia has very little incentive to keep fighting Ukraine because they no longer see an existential threat. For Ukrainians it is devastating to be in the middle in this conflict, while not having any influence on the course of the war. But it’s a reality that I cannot change. All I can do is pressure my own government to work towards peace instead of continued aggression.
Is your argument reallly that Russia’s invasion is justified because Russia was provoked? So a good country that should be supported, totally has the right to invade another one if the other one is doing something not to your liking?
Who cares? I mean, it is a lie as the head of Russian state only really cares for money and power. But even if that would be true, that Russia would see NATO as an existential threat. Who cares? You should support Ukraine in its fight for existence and independence even if that pisses Russia. NATO or Ukraine have no obligation to please Russia.
On the contrary, Europe and other countries should take concrete actions to protect themselves. There is an obvious aggressor. If the aggressor sees your safety as their existential threat, and the aggressor is invading other countries, your only reasonable option is to be prepared to defend yourself and help others who are fighting for their existence and their independence. There’s no other choice unless your argument is “just give the aggressor what it wants, surely it’s gonna fix the problem”. And that in particular is very, very, very well studied to be wrong. An aggressor like that never stops given reduced resistance.
You seem to be completely oblivious to NATO expansionism:
And the atrocities NATO and the US has committed in Europe, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/us_atrocities.html
I’m not making any moral judgements. I care about ending the suffering that came from this war, and I think your analysis is based on wishful thinking and fantasy stories that you have been told about Ukraine and NATO. There’s too much for me to dissect to continue this conversation.
Your street bully analogy fails spectacularly at really understanding the conflict on a basic level. It treats a complex geopolitical struggle as a random act of individual malice, ignoring the historical trajectory and objective forces at play.
In 2014, the legitimately elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in a US-backed coup. The subsequent regime empowered nationalist elements as their virulent Russophobia made them a useful proxy for Western capital and NATO expansion.
This war is many things but it is categorically not an unprovoked assault on an innocent bystander. The new Kyiv government almost immediately launched a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the predominantly Russian-speaking population in the Donbass. The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015 expose this dynamic entirely. Kyiv repeatedly violated the terms, refusing to implement the political provisions regarding Donbass autonomy. Ceasefire violations were routine and the shelling of civilian infrastructure in the east continued for close to a decade.
This material reality forced the populations of Donetsk and Luhansk to organize their own defense. This led to the formation of the LPR and DPR, alongside Crimea moving to reunify with Russia. This civil conflict is the direct precursor to the current war.
Kyiv was deliberately cultivated as a geopolitical spearhead against Russia. To evaluate Russia’s response through the lens of abstract morality is to ignore objective conditions. Russia’s actions were a logical and foreseeable reaction to a hostile military infrastructure constructed on its border by a hegemonic power. You cannot isolate a single event from the chain of material cause and effect that produced it.
So you support Russia going to war on the territory of another country ~“because other countries did not leave it any choice” or so? The NATO that was mostly forgotten and dormant before Russian’s invasion and received a small fraction of its attention and funding now, that same NATO, just did not leave Russia any choice but to attack at all? And Russia absolutely could not avoid invading Ukraine, it just had to do it, in attempts to fix internal Ukranian problems, as perceived by Russia. Oh and the poor populations of Donetsk, legally and otherwise belonging to Ukraine, had to be invaded too and their lives are now improving?
What you’re saying is shameful. You’re not even giving Ukraine autonomy in your explanation of the “geopolitical struggle”. You’re saying “US” and “Russia”, but not “Ukranian people chose to _”.
I very specifically did not declare support or condemnation. Subjective moralizing is irrelevant to analyzing historical reality. Explaining the material causes of an event is not the same as endorsing it. My point was that Russia’s actions were a logical and foreseeable reaction to objective conditions, not that they operated with some metaphysical lack of choice.
Your claim that NATO was dormant or forgotten is historically illiterate. In the decade preceding this conflict, that same alliance bombed and destabilized multiple sovereign nations, including Libya and Afghanistan. It is not a defensive pact that suddenly woke up. It is an expanding military bloc.
Any state would perceive a foreign-backed coup and a hostile military buildup on its border as a direct threat. This is basic geopolitical reality, exactly as it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Expecting a major power to passively accept its border being turned into a staging ground for a rival hegemon is naive.
You speak of Ukrainian self-determination while offering blatant apologetics for the eight-year shelling of the Donbas and the suppression of Crimea. True autonomy was discarded in 2014. The majority of the Ukrainian population did not choose the current path of perpetual war and subordination to Western interests. That is precisely why a forceful coup was required to install the current regime, sparking the civil war that escalated into the current conflict.
Analyzing how and why events happen requires looking at material reality, not retreating into abstract ravings about street bullies and metaphysical musts.
Wow, first day using analogies?