Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Russia mobilises - consequences and reactions

xenon said:
The reason being that if the whole NATO expansion in eastern Europe thing had been handled differently, when the western-friendly gang in Russia were in power, we might well not be seeing this mobilisation. We might not even know Putin.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah. SO now what?
No really, what? Is this it for you, just sniping away, with the same old points. Arch sinic, act.


I mean you keep saying the same thing. Making the same point Any chance of reacting, developing to the world as is? I don't really care that much what you reckon, I just find it mildly interesting that you're stuck in this loop.
[/QUOTE]
Like others, you seem stuck in the loop of imagining that something good is going to come out of this war. I don't know whatt you want me to say, when you war enthusiasts have nothing to say yourselves.
 
Last edited:
Ax^ said:
Putin was provoked.... so his war is justified :hmm:


can we fuck this putin bot off another thread or the whole Ukraine sub forum ?
Click to expand...
I did try and become a 'Putin Bot,' but I failed the interview. Holes in my CV, or summat, I don't know.
 
Kevbad the Bad said:
Dictators don't need material causes to start wars. Nothing Hitler did was inevitable. Nothing Stalin did was. Nothing Putin has done. Their own flawed personalities and the systems they control give them the power, within varying limits, to do whatever they want.
Click to expand...
There is a huge swathe of historical analysis, some socialist but also liberal, that has shown that Hitler (and reducing the Nazi regime to Hitler is nonsense itself) did not have the ability to do whatever he wanted. The majority of the most important modern historians of Nazi Germany - Mason, Kershaw, Mommsen - have spent decades writing about the limits of Hitler's power in the Third Reich.
(BTW do you reject the flight forward?)

I mean don't you think of yourself as an anarchist? You don't think that little thing called the class war may be relevant factor in why events happen?
I can understand why some would want to reject a materialist analysis of history in favour of big men, but I find if bizarre that so many don't even seem to understand the materialist perspective, and frankly crazy that so many "socialists" are seemingly abandoning it.
 
Last edited:
And just to be explicitly clear for the hard of thinking - none of the above does not mean that I think Putin is a murderous scumbag who I would love to see gone. It does not mean that I don't believe the Putin, Hilter or Stalin could not personally make other choices than they did.
But the reduction of history and politics to individual choices (of big men) is absurd and a political dead end.
 
All good points. However, a material analysis also has to include the material reality for the brutalised ex-Soviet states that were desperate to never again be controlled by Moscow. Traumatised people living in fear, willing to do what it took to protect themselves. A material analysis also has to recognise the reality of interests in Russia that wanted to re-establish its empire, meaning that the fears of the ex-Soviet states were grounded. Furthermore, there is the material effect of being in an alliance acting to improve relations between ex-Soviet states and reduce the risk of expansionism between those states. As such, it is far from clear that a counterfactual without NATO expansion would have produced less violence and war. Personally, I think it would have been more bloody, not less.
 
kabbes said:
All good points. However, a material analysis also has to include the material reality for the brutalised ex-Soviet states that were desperate to never again be controlled by Moscow. Traumatised people living in fear, willing to do what it took to protect themselves. A material analysis also has to recognise the reality of interests in Russia that wanted to re-establish its empire, meaning that the fears of the ex-Soviet states were grounded. Furthermore, there is the material effect of being in an alliance acting to improve relations between ex-Soviet states and reduce the risk of expansionism between those states.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I think I would agree with all of that.
kabbes said:
As such, it is far from clear that a counterfactual without NATO expansion would have produced less violence and war. Personally, I think it would have been more bloody, not less.
Click to expand...
Like I said from the perspective of less than a year from start of the conflict I think it is difficult to be definitive about anything. And I certainly do not have enough background knowledge to be certain which factors are crucial. I'm not going to argue that NATO expansion was a decisive factor, but I don't think considering makes ones a Putin apologist

What I am certain about is that the reduction of this conflict down to Putin being a nasty man is both useless and absurd as stating that WWII started because of Hitler.
 
Kevbad the Bad said:
Dictators don't need material causes to start wars. Nothing Hitler did was inevitable. Nothing Stalin did was. Nothing Putin has done. Their own flawed personalities and the systems they control give them the power, within varying limits, to do whatever they want. The same is true of other political systems, but to much lesser extents. All kinds of stuff may affect the decisions of dictators, including in this case the actions of NATO, but if NATO had not expanded eastwards can anyone say that a megalomaniac dictator like Putin would not have sought to recreate the Russian empire by invading Ukraine?
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused here Kev .

You are putting forward a formula of flawed personality + systems they control = power - various limits = infinity ie to do whatever they want ie start a war.

Starting with the objective of wanting a peaceful world or preventing war then I'd like to understand more about this formula. I'm not sure what weighting or value you are putting on the level of being flawed, or the type of system that they control or the various limits. and how these would limit or expand the ability to do whatever the dictator wants.

You then say that this is true of other political systems ( no mention of economic systems) but to a much lesser extent . What other systems did you have in mind?
 
LDC said:
Yeah I think there's some pretty good criticisms of his posting style and content, but I wouldn't have him down as a pro-Putin type and haven't seen him express that either tbh.
Click to expand...
There seems to be a fair amount of polarisation going on the the Ukraine threads. You're either a NATO cheerleader who wants to push us into nuclear war or a stooge of Putin.

Pick your side!
 
redsquirrel said:
There is a huge swathe of historical analysis, some socialist but also liberal, that has shown that Hitler (and reducing the Nazi regime to Hitler is nonsense itself) did not have the ability to do whatever he wanted. The majority of the most important modern historians of Nazi Germany - Mason, Kershaw, Mommsen - have spent decades writing about the limits of Hitler's power in the Third Reich.
(BTW do you reject the flight forward?)

I mean don't you think of yourself as an anarchist? You don't think that little thing called the class war may be relevant factor in why events happen?
I can understand why some would want to reject a materialist analysis of history in favour of big men, but I find if bizarre that so many don't even seem to understand the materialist perspective, and frankly crazy that so many "socialists" are seemingly abandoning it.
Click to expand...
I haven't said there are no limits on dictators power. Of course there are. Just far fewer than on other political leaders. The individual caprices of a dictator can have an enormous influence on historical events. The decision to go to war is one such event. Mostly, wars happen anyway because of the decisions of handfuls of people. There are underlying material factors pushing governments in particular ways, but nothing makes wars inevitable. Did the Americans have to get involved in Vietnam? No. Arguably they stumbled into that war and then didn't know how to get out, certainly not foreseeing the consequences.

Yeltsin could have stopped the USSR breaking up, maybe, if he had wanted to. He didn't, for whatever reason. Putin could have made the decision not to invade Ukraine. He didn't, for whatever reason. Class war was not a factor in either of those decisions. Nor were there underlying material factors necessitating action either way in either case. Yeltsin was not such an autocrat as Putin. Putin so much more autocratic. You only had to watch that session where he was asking his ministers their opinions in public, all quaking in their boots.

The 'big men' view of history (it should really be called the 'big person' view) is not incompatible with a materialist view. The more power individuals have the more influence their personalities, backgrounds and beliefs have on world events. When it comes to starting wars it would seem to be particularly true.
 
Kevbad the Bad said:
I haven't said there are no limits on dictators power. Of course there are. Just far fewer than on other political leaders. The individual caprices of a dictator can have an enormous influence on historical events. The decision to go to war is one such event. Mostly, wars happen anyway because of the decisions of handfuls of people. There are underlying material factors pushing governments in particular ways, but nothing makes wars inevitable. Did the Americans have to get involved in Vietnam? No. Arguably they stumbled into that war and then didn't know how to get out, certainly not foreseeing the consequences.

Yeltsin could have stopped the USSR breaking up, maybe, if he had wanted to. He didn't, for whatever reason. Putin could have made the decision not to invade Ukraine. He didn't, for whatever reason. Class war was not a factor in either of those decisions. Nor were there underlying material factors necessitating action either way in either case. Yeltsin was not such an autocrat as Putin. Putin so much more autocratic. You only had to watch that session where he was asking his ministers their opinions in public, all quaking in their boots.

The 'big men' view of history (it should really be called the 'big person' view) is not incompatible with a materialist view. The more power individuals have the more influence their personalities, backgrounds and beliefs have on world events. When it comes to starting wars it would seem to be particularly true.
Click to expand...
Hitler declaring war on the USA in the wake of peal harbour was a classic act of a the a dictator taking a far reaching and self destructive decision based on capricious delusion. It enabled Roosevelt to immediately commit the USA's enormous industrial and economic muscle to the defeat of Nazi Germany as its number one priority. If Hitler hadn't declared war - then Roosevelt would have had to prioritise the defeat of Japan. War with Germany would have very likely happened any way (usa was very far from "neutral" in 1941 - it position was more like its present day one wrt Ukraine - but with Roosevelt pushing for the US to join the war) but at a later date and the war would have gone on longer and could potentially seen Germany getting nuked as well as japan.
(sorry for derail - maybe a discussion for the WW2 forum?)
 
The39thStep said:
I'm a little confused here Kev .

You are putting forward a formula of flawed personality + systems they control = power - various limits = infinity ie to do whatever they want ie start a war.

Starting with the objective of wanting a peaceful world or preventing war then I'd like to understand more about this formula. I'm not sure what weighting or value you are putting on the level of being flawed, or the type of system that they control or the various limits. and how these would limit or expand the ability to do whatever the dictator wants.

You then say that this is true of other political systems ( no mention of economic systems) but to a much lesser extent . What other systems did you have in mind?
Click to expand...
Sorry about your confusion. I was just making a common sense point. The more power people get the more their personal quirks and foibles have an impact. You can call it the 'foible view' of history if you want to. The less power individuals have the less their foibles matter to the wider world. There will still be breaks on their power, but lesser ones. If Putin were to order a nuclear strike on China, for instance, that order might not be carried out. A nuclear strike on Ukraine? Probably. His foibles would still be responsible for the initial order.


Sometimes when you say a certain word often enough it sounds very strange. Perhaps we could rename the 'foible view' to the 'quirky view'?
 
Kevbad the Bad said:
Sorry about your confusion. I was just making a common sense point. The more power people get the more their personal quirks and foibles have an impact. You can call it the 'foible view' of history if you want to. The less power individuals have the less their foibles matter to the wider world. There will still be breaks on their power, but lesser ones. If Putin were to order a nuclear strike on China, for instance, that order might not be carried out. A nuclear strike on Ukraine? Probably. His foibles would still be responsible for the initial order.


Sometimes when you say a certain word often enough it sounds very strange. Perhaps we could rename the 'foible view' to the 'quirky view'?
Click to expand...
Thanks .
 
[/QUOTE]
Like others, you seem stuck in the loop of imagining that something good is going to come out of this war. I don't know whatt you want me to say, when you war enthusiasts have nothing to say yourselves.
[/QUOTE]

Bollocks. You dont' engage in discussion, so how would you know what I imagine. And casting those who are in favour of providing support to Ukraine's defensive efforts as war enthusiasts is as fasile as calling you a Putin fan.
maomao said:
To be fair, the main reason he does this is because he's continually being accused of saying things that he hasn't.

Talking about the context of the war doesn't absolve Putin any more than talking about patriarchy absolves rapists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, anyone with the ability to read an minded so, can find out about the context. He's not discussing it, just bringing up time and again as some sort of argument against support for Ukraine.

I've already said I don't think he's a Putin fan or wahtever but won't bother hence.
 
Like others, you seem stuck in the loop of imagining that something good is going to come out of this war. I don't know whatt you want me to say, when you war enthusiasts have nothing to say yourselves.
[/QUOTE]

Bollocks. You dont' engage in discussion, so how would you know what I imagine. And casting those who are in favour of providing support to Ukraine's defensive efforts as war enthusiasts is as fasile as calling you a Putin fan.


Yeah, anyone with the ability to read an minded so, can find out about the context. He's not discussing it, just bringing up time and again as some sort of argument against support for Ukraine.

I've already said I don't think he's a Putin fan or wahtever but won't bother hence.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think the term war enthusiast would have been coined if not for the enthusiasm displayed by so many of those who seem to think supporting Ukraine is some kind of crusade (for them from afar.)

Neither do I bring context up as an argument for not supporting Ukraine. Nor does almost anybody else who brings it up. After all, everything has a context.

I know many would prefer not to think about context in the case of this war.
 
Last edited:
If you are considering context, mind, it’s important you consider the whole context. Not an edited and politically directed subset of that context.

ETA: or, more realistically, it is important that one self-reflect on one’s own subjectivity and what that is also bringing to the context, and what it is excluding.
 
Last edited:
kabbes said:
If you are considering context, mind, it’s important you consider the whole context. Not an edited and politically directed subset of that context.

ETA: or, more realistically, it is important that one self-reflect on one’s own subjectivity and what that is also bringing to the context, and what it is excluding.
Click to expand...
Have you many examples in mind where this view of context has been displayed?
 
kabbes said:
If you are considering context, mind, it’s important you consider the whole context. Not an edited and politically directed subset of that context.

ETA: or, more realistically, it is important that one self-reflect on one’s own subjectivity and what that is also bringing to the context, and what it is excluding.
Click to expand...
Your second sentence applies to everybody.

I think I've consistently considered the whole context regarding what led to this war by outlining, to inexplicable outrage from some, how I think the west played a role in alienating Russia when it was western-friendly, and the way this eventually led to Putin. Not to mention how the Putin regime evolved, largely as a reaction to events, from a ruthless but pragmatic entity into today's despotism.
 
RD2003 said:
I think I've consistently considered the whole context regarding what led to this war by outlining, to inexplicable outrage from some, how I think the west played a role in alienating Russia when it was western-friendly, and the way this eventually led to Putin. Not to mention how the Putin regime evolved, largely as a reaction to events, from a ruthless but pragmatic entity into today's despotism.
Click to expand...
The very fact that you view this as the “whole context” is itself a fantastic example of the issue I am raising.
 
kabbes said:
The very fact that you view this as the “whole context” is itself a fantastic example of the issue I am raising.
Click to expand...
Which is all very well to say this in one or two line posts containing nothing but amateur psychologising.
 
kabbes said:
All good points. However, a material analysis also has to include the material reality for the brutalised ex-Soviet states that were desperate to never again be controlled by Moscow. Traumatised people living in fear, willing to do what it took to protect themselves. A material analysis also has to recognise the reality of interests in Russia that wanted to re-establish its empire, meaning that the fears of the ex-Soviet states were grounded. Furthermore, there is the material effect of being in an alliance acting to improve relations between ex-Soviet states and reduce the risk of expansionism between those states. As such, it is far from clear that a counterfactual without NATO expansion would have produced less violence and war. Personally, I think it would have been more bloody, not less.
Click to expand...
If this is the missing part of the context you refer to, then I have addressed much of it before, particularly the causes of the reinforced determination of the nationalistic, imperialist-minded elements in Russian politics and society.

Anybody who went to these places, or some of them, at the end of the cold war, or in the period leading up to it, would know that most of their people were not particularly traumatised. The younger elements quite the opposite in most cases. After Stalin, life wasn't that traumatic for most people for long periods. Certainly it wasn't as traumatic as where people had to contend with US/western-induced bloodthirsty regimes. Furthermore, there was already a large amount of anti-Russian solidarity between most of the ex-Soviet bloc states (if that's what you're referring to, as opposed to components of the ex-USSR), particularly their political elites. It's stretching it a lot to suggest that without NATO expansion there would have been widespread bloodshed between them.

It's notable that you seem to believe, as do most of the war enthusiasts, that there was some overwhelming clamour to join NATO among east European populations when, of course, any such clamour that did exist was as much contrived by ultimately untouchable political and economic elites, acting in their own narrow interest, as anything that happens elsewhere. Like the rest of us, the people of those countries get where they're given and told to like it.
 
Last edited:
The39thStep said:
I have always admire those who lead by their own example
Click to expand...
Well, you are left with a choice. Either you agree with RD2003’s statement that the West’s reaction to the collapse of the USSR truly comprises the “whole context” of this war. Or you conclude that he is indeed an example of having a blind spot. A blind spot that I am suggesting is due to a common subjective sense that it must be “all about us”.

And that’s fine and all, but it’s a bit rich for him to then lecture us that we need to take the context into account
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Russian ship ‘fires at German helicopter’
Replies
4
Views
384
dilute micro
dilute micro
brogdale
Russia; pariah state watch
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
215
Views
11K
Cid
Cid
Smangus
Effects - current and potential of the worlds sanctions on Russia
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
220
Views
12K
TopCat
TopCat
RD2003
What will the unforeseen consequences of the war be?
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
RD2003
RD2003
frogwoman
How likely is war with Russia?
2 3
Replies
66
Views
3K
RD2003
RD2003
Back
Top Bottom