Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The long term causes of war in Ukraine

Doctor Carrot

Marxist Henchman
I think the main thread is talking about the invasion itself as it stands now and reactions to it. Any discussion about NATO, Post soviet western relations, shock capitalism in 1990s Russia etc are a bit disruptive to it.

So I've made a shiny new thread for such discussions here.
 
I forget who posted this article and with what comment now
but this is a useful summary:

"Putin and his circle had come to see Nato as an offensive alliance and a threat. When its planes bombed Russia’s ally Yugoslavia in 1999, it was not a defensive act, in Moscow’s eyes, as no Nato member had been attacked.

In 2002, George W Bush withdrew the US from the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty with Russia, deepening suspicions about US motives. And the Kremlin was convinced western hands orchestrated the Rose revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the Orange revolution in Ukraine the following year, further undermining Moscow’s sway in what was once the Soviet Union.

The belief that those uprisings were western plots was reinforced by the Nato decision during the alliance’s 2008 summit in Bucharest to open the door to membership to both Ukraine and Georgia.

“Putin thought that in return for cooperating with the US in Afghanistan, the US would recognise that Russia was a great power with a right to a sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space. Instead he got withdrawal from the ABM treaty, he got the colour revolutions and the Iraq war,” Stent said. “I think by 2007, he was thoroughly soured by his experiences with the west, and that’s also when he started harbouring these territorial designs.”

The Nato-led intervention in Libya in 2011 led to another sharp downward turn in Russia’s descent towards isolation. Moscow felt tricked into voting for a UN resolution that approved “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, a move broadly interpreted by the US and its European allies as a mandate for regime change. Putin is said to have repeatedly watched video footage of the murder of Muammar Gaddafi by a vengeful mob.
 
It is a useful summary and is what prompted me to start this thread.

I don't agree with the sentiment that Putin's belligerence towards Ukraine and the west started in 2007 though. I also don't like the argument that the west caused the orange revolution in Ukraine because I think it robs Ukraininians of agency. There's a feeling I get that if only Ukraine had done what Russia wanted and just handed their country over to Putin's cronies we wouldn't be in this mess. I mean it's probably true but it's not a position I can get behind.

I'm also queasy about the fact that Russia 'should be allowed' its own sphere of influence over Ukraine and other States bordering it. Why? The US has no given right to a sphere of influence over Latin America despite what it thinks otherwise so why should Russia be allowed the same?

Even if all Russia's grievances are legitimate I just don't see why Putin has attacked so aggressively. I understood Crimea and the Donbas but I don't understand this. Other than of course to just disrupt the whole thing because that's the only card he feels he can play, like the article mentions. I certainly can't see what he's going to get from Ukraine. They're never going to allow a puppet government to stand now and he certainly can't occupy the place indefinitely.
 
Last edited:
It is a useful summary and is what prompted me to start this thread.

I don't agree with the sentiment that Putin's belligerence towards Ukraine and the west started in 2007 though. I also don't like the argument that the west caused the orange revolution in Ukraine because I think it robs Ukraininians of agency. There's a feeling I get that if only Ukraine had done what Russia wanted and just handed their country over to Putin's cronies we wouldn't be in this mess. I mean it's probably true but it's not a position I can get behind.

I'm also queasy about the fact that Russia 'should be allowed' its own sphere of influence over Ukraine and other States bordering it. Why? The US has no given right to a sphere of influence over Latin America despite what it thinks otherwise so why should Russia be allowed the same?

Even if all Russia's grievances are legitimate I just don't see why Putin has attacked so aggressively. I understood Crimea and the Donbas but I don't understand this. Other than of course to just disrupt the whole thing because that's the only card he feels he can play, like the article mentions. I certainly can't see what he's going to get from Ukraine. They're never going to allow a puppet government to stand now and he certainly can't occupy the place indefinitely.
i basically agree with you, up to a point. Will try and go through the things you mention.

When Putin's belligerence began can't be pinpointed to one moment IMO.
We're talking about two imperial blocks in competition. The tectonic plate style pressure of the competition is always there and erupts like an earthquake when the pressure reaches a certain breaking point.

As to who caused the colour revolutions and how much the west was involved, the reality is almost irrelevant. From the Kremlin's view it was a great affront, and the West cheered it on. Of course Georgia and Ukraine have a right to self determination, and I support it. For me it's not about "respecting" the view from the Kremlin - I have no respect for it at all - but i am realistic about their world view.

Re "Russia should be allowed a sphere of influence". Who is doing the allowing, or not? The Western imperial block is. A block which absolutely has a sphere of influence and grows it, by coercive means, as it sees fit. I'm not going to argue for one block to reduce the influence of another block. Either we are against imperial influence or not. So no, Russia shouldn't have an imperial sphere of influence. But as long as there is imperial competition it will seek to extend it. Recognising that isn't recognising a right, like a human right, its recognising an actor acting in its own interest.

"Even if all Russia's grievances are legitimate" - I dont see them as legitimate at all .... but then I dont see the Russian state as legitimate. This isn't about legitimacy. Its about recognising that within its own imperial logic it will act a certain way though.

Theres a difference in how we are seeing this...does any of that make sense?
 
i basically agree with you, up to a point. Will try and go through the things you mention.

When Putin's belligerence began can't be pinpointed to one moment IMO.
We're talking about two imperial blocks in competition. The tectonic plate style pressure of the competition is always there and erupts like an earthquake when the pressure reaches a certain breaking point.

As to who caused the colour revolutions and how much the west was involved, the reality is almost irrelevant. From the Kremlin's view it was a great affront, and the West cheered it on. Of course Georgia and Ukraine have a right to self determination, and I support it. For me it's not about "respecting" the view from the Kremlin - I have no respect for it at all - but i am realistic about their world view.

Re "Russia should be allowed a sphere of influence". Who is doing the allowing, or not? The Western imperial block is. A block which absolutely has a sphere of influence and grows it, by coercive means, as it sees fit. I'm not going to argue for one block to reduce the influence of another block. Either we are against imperial influence or not. So no, Russia shouldn't have an imperial sphere of influence. But as long as there is imperial competition it will seek to extend it. Recognising that isn't recognising a right, like a human right, its recognising an actor acting in its own interest.

"Even if all Russia's grievances are legitimate" - I dont see them as legitimate at all .... but then I dont see the Russian state as legitimate. This isn't about legitimacy. Its about recognising that within its own imperial logic it will act a certain way though.

Theres a difference in how we are seeing this...does any of that make sense?
Yeah it does make a lot of sense and I don't really have any arguments with any of it.

I've unwittingly fallen into the trap of taking sides. Not in taking the side of the western block over Russia but just simply being outraged at what's happening. I've just seen footage of tanks deliberately shelling a block of flats and some shops in Mariupol and it just makes me wanna pick a side and I'm not on the side of that because that's just criminal but then again, like you say, it's more than that. The Russian state is criminal and so is the British, American and so on.

Otoh you can only confront the world you're living in as it is now and that world makes it really difficult to not just disregard everything Russia puts out as its justifications. I mean Putin has apparently said to the German chancellor and Macron on the phone that the Ukraine army is using civilians as human shields. Obviously we can't know whether he said that or not but for him to expect other heads of state to believe that on a diplomatic call points to something in him beyond imperialist expansion and grievances. Or maybe it's mad man theory? Or maybe it's... Fuck knows... It's exhausting and increasingly concerning and I feel powerless.
 
Political issues aside, I still think a lot of this still boils down to a good ol'-fashioned resource war.

The Crimea itself was a big win for the large amounts of oil and gas in and around it. As this Forbes article from 2019 states, even after taking most of the reserves away from Ukraine, Russia was still unhappy with the leverage Ukraine had (both in terms of pipeline transits and wanting to use western firms for their own infrastructure). Of course, if Ukraine had been able to exploit its own resources built with western investment, it would have put Russian hydrocarbons at the back of the queue for european sales.

Moscow’s intent to exploit Ukraine’s natural gas deposits is not just idle speculation; it is currently underway. When Russian forces annexed Crimea in 2014, they seized subsidiaries of Ukraine’s state energy conglomerate Naftogaz operating in the Black Sea. The Kremlin appropriated these companies — and billions of dollars of equipment — and delivered them to Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned energy giant. In one fell swoop, Russia ended Ukraine’s offshore oil and gas operations and bolstered its own.

...

Ultimately the energy resources in the Black Sea will be extracted and produced– the question is by whom. The rightful beneficiaries of Crimea's offshore oil and gas should be the Ukranian people. The Kremlin has different ideas. Beyond the Black Sea, Ukraine cannot hope to develop its domestic energy sector without getting its regulatory and legal house in order. At the same time, it will need to find an effective strategy to fend off Russia’s creeping annexation. A war-torn country dominated by corrupt state monopolies is not an attractive destination for private investment.

I don't know if it's been mentioned in other threads or not, but in the wake of the 2014 annexation of the Crimea, Ukraine cut water supplies through the North Crimean Canal such that Crimea suffers from frequent water shortages. Have a look at the geography - it's over a tiny strip of land that connects it to the "mainland" just south of Kherson and the Crimea itself has an extensive canal system running from this main culvert. Thus controlling the canal is a key strategic objective in the long-term viability of the Crimea.

I suspect if there's ever any concessions made in light of the military quagmire (especially in the north), Ukraine would lose all its territory that touches the Black Sea.
 
Russian imperialist expansion under the Tsars created a huge empire with little internal cohesion and half the population ethnically non-Russian. The borders of the Empire contained large populations with ethnic and cultural links outside the Empire. The Bolshevik and Stalinist solution to this included mass forced ethnic cleansing from these areas and settlement of Russian speakers in non Russian parts of the Empire. Nobody ever really expected the Soviet Union to fragment in the way it did, but when it did there were Russian minorities all over the place in the newly independent states. All it then needed was for the Russian federation to be led by an aggressive Great Russian nationalist. The particular reasons/excuses for conflict, e.g. Crimea or the Donbas, could just as easily have been something else. Plenty to choose from.
 
Moving this bit of conversation from the main thread into here
theres no doubt "resources" are a factor in this war. it would be simplistic to believe only Russia was interested in this
i posted this a few weeks back (from here):

"QUOTE: "Of course, much depends on how the war pans out. If Putin can gain control of Ukraine, that opens up significant riches to be exploited. Ukraine is rich in natural resources, particularly in mineral deposits. It possesses the world’s largest reserves of commercial-grade iron ore – 30 billion tonnes of ore, or around one-fifth of the global total. It ranks second in terms of known natural gas reserves in Europe, which today remain largely untapped. Ukraine’s mostly flat geography and high-quality soil composition make the country a big regional agricultural player. The country is the world’s fifth-largest exporter of wheat and the largest exporter of seed oils like sunflower and rapeseed. Coal mining, chemicals, mechanical products (aircraft, turbines, locomotives and tractors) and shipbuilding are also important sectors of the Ukrainian economy.

All of this remains to be fully exploited. The EU and the US have also been drooling over the prospect of getting hold of these resources. As I recently showed,1 the Ukraine government plans to sell off huge tracts of land to foreign and domestic investors to develop. That could deliver huge dividends to whichever power controls the country. Either way, once the war is over and after thousands have been killed or injured, Ukraine’s people will see little benefit."

More on the Ukraine sell off of resources before the invasions here:

Its all relevant but this is the main point - debt, IMF privatisation, land sell off to the Chinese and US, withdrawing from Russian gas


A major problem remains the country’s large foreign debt. This year represents a peak in repayments, and in 2020, nearly a third of budget spending will go toward debt repayment. There is for now no alternative to external borrowing, however, and the government is preparing to pass a new borrowing program from the IMF for $5 to $10 billion over a three- to four-year period. So far, negotiations are not going well with the IMF, which requires Ukraine to step up the fight against corruption and implement judicial reform, as well as launch large-scale privatizations and open up the country’s land market.

Large-scale privatization isn’t just an IMF requirement; it was also one of Zelensky’s campaign pledges. The Ukrainian state is not the most efficient owner, and state companies are a source of corruption. The first tenders—of a range of regional energy companies, as well as chemical and machine-building enterprises, among others—are due to be held in the spring of 2020. The government expects to make up to half a billion dollars from the privatization program, though previous attempts at privatization in the country show that the process will not be an easy one.

Potential foreign buyers of Ukrainian assets include China, which this year overtook Russia to become Ukraine’s main foreign trade partner. Increased Chinese interest in the Ukrainian economy may seem to offer great potential, but it could also complicate Ukraine’s relationship with the United States, which is keen to contain its main rival. The United States has already made it clear that it did not approve of plans to sell a controlling stake in Ukraine’s Motor Sich airplane engine plant to two Chinese companies earlier this year (the deal was in any case blocked by Ukraine’s security services and anti-monopoly committee as harming Ukraine’s security interests). The battle for control of the plant continues, with reported interest from the founder of the U.S. private military company Blackwater, Erik Prince, who is also an adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump.

The long-awaited opening up of the Ukrainian land market looks set to be no less complicated. Zelensky has ordered a moratorium on selling agricultural land that has been in place since 2001 to be repealed by the end of this year. Experts from the Kyiv School of Economics estimate the sale of land could bring in $22.5 billion, which would raise growth rates to the level promised by Honcharuk. But the move comes with a hefty political price tag. Nearly half (49.1 percent) of people living in Ukraine have a negative attitude to the prospect of unrestricted land sale, according to a poll carried out by the Razumkov Center. Given Ukraine’s endemic corruption, people are scared that the authorities will turn a blind eye to transnational companies and local magnates buying up land for a song, while Ukrainian farmers will lose out.

Zelensky maintains that only residents of Ukraine—both individuals and legal entities—will have the right to own land, and insists that no one will be able to own more than 15 percent of one region or 0.5 percent of Ukrainian land, while farmers will get compensation in the form of low-interest loans. But land sale is a highly sensitive issue, and any wrong move here could damage Zelensky’s popularity. Opposition parties across the spectrum are already trying to take advantage of these fears, and have spoken out again the sale of land.

Zelensky’s team also hopes to attract foreign investors, yet despite simplified procedures for doing business and protections for minority shareholders, foreign investors are not exactly rushing to Ukraine. In the first half of 2019, the volume of foreign direct investment was about $1.3 billion, and for the whole of 2018 it was $2.4 billion. That is currently far behind the contribution made to Ukraine’s economy by its biggest benefactors: nationals working abroad and sending money home. According to Economic Development Ministry calculations, this year they will have transferred home a total of $12 billion (up $1 billion from last year).

Another factor to be taken into account is the gas agreement between Ukraine and Russia, a long-running source of contention that must be renewed when it expires on December 31, 2019. Since the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will bypass Ukraine is not yet complete, Moscow still relies on Ukraine’s gas transit system to deliver gas to Europe: an arrangement under which Ukraine makes an annual profit of $3 billion. Currently, negotiations are at a standstill over a shortfall in Russian deliveries.

Ukraine’s energy minister has said that the country currently has record volumes of gas in its storage facilities—enough to heat homes throughout the winter without Russian gas—and is ready to stop transporting Russian gas from January 1, 2020. Ukraine’s central bank is less optimistic, and estimates the cost of ending the transit at 0.6 percent of Ukraine’s GDP in 2020 and 0.9 percent in 2021.
 
Last edited:
I suspect if there's ever any concessions made in light of the military quagmire (especially in the north), Ukraine would lose all its territory that touches the Black Sea.
That does look to be the clear objective now - long suspected of course

Opera Snapshot_2022-05-01_124204_www.bbc.co.uk.png

From your Forbes link

1111111111.png

2222222222222222222222.png
 
Could the Russian population crisis be a major factor in Putin's seemingly desperate and reckless action?
very interesting that ... i think a lot of these concerns overlap rather than any one being key...all pointing to a Kremlin struggling to maintain empire
 
An in depth look at the Russian gas and oil situation post-Soviet Union, focussing on the geo aspects of the geo-politics
I learned a lot...mainly about pipelines...36minutes long but packed with information
very convincing case made for energy control being the primary drive for the Kremlin
 
Last edited:
I suppose this thread is the best place for this. Most people on here hate Hitchens, I know, but he's pretty much on the button with this. Might as well be quoted in full.

August is a Dangerous Month - the Forgotten History of Ukraine's Sudden Independence​

What a dangerous time of year this is. So many of the worst crises of human history happen in the very dead of summer, when the fields are ready to harvest and there is still time to launch invasions before the autumn rains make the ground too soft.

But there is more to it than that. July and August are often a sort of slack tide in human affairs when one series of events has ended and a new one is about to begin. In modern times, world leaders are usually on holiday, while their deputies sit in quiet offices, hoping not to be tested. And then the phone rings and the world changes.

When Ukraine was marking its independence yesterday (WEDS) it was marking a total surprise. Nobody in any position of power would have dared to predict an independent Ukraine even weeks before it actually happened on August 24th 1991. Only three weeks before, on August 1st 1991, US President George H.W. Bush delivered an oration which would later become known derisively (among American hawks) as ‘The Chicken Kiev Speech’. Bush was not keen on an independent Ukraine. He told what was still Ukraine’s Soviet puppet parliament ‘I come here to tell you: we support the struggle in this great country for democracy and economic reform. In Moscow, I outlined our approach. We will support those in the centre and the republics who pursue freedom, democracy and economic liberty.’ But when he used the phrase ‘this great country’ he was talking about the Soviet Union, not Ukraine. He expected (and wanted) the USSR to continue to exist. During his visit he had refused to meet campaigners for Ukrainian independence. After praising the reforms of the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, he warned against independence if it only changed a distant despot for a local one, suggesting that this was the outcome he feared. And he was startlingly rude about nationalism itself, as liberals used to be in those days. Bush proclaimed ‘Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred’. He feared an outbreak of ancient tensions in Ukraine, which had a recent history of deep ethnic passions. Some might now say that he had a point. He is thought to have inserted the words about ‘suicidal nationalism’ himself.

He was not the only one to fail to see the future. A year before Bush’s visit to Ukraine, on June 9 1990, Margaret Thatcher (still then in power) had spoken from the same Kiev podium. She briskly batted away a question about opening a British embassy in Kiev. This, she explained, was as likely as Britain opening an embassy in California or Quebec. ‘I can see you are trying to get me involved in your politics!’, she scolded her questioner, adding ‘Embassies are only for countries which have full national status. Therefore, we have Ambassadorial diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, with the United States, with Canada, with Australia. We do not have Embassies for California, for Quebec, for states in Australia.’

These two experienced, well-briefed and clever leaders had every excuse for not seeing the future. In those days, diplomats and spooks - and journalists - were repeatedly overtaken by events. Most western leaders hoped to keep the USSR in one piece, and encourage as much liberal and democratic reform as they could. I had the great good luck to be my newspaper’s correspondent in Moscow when a mad Stalinist putsch erupted there in late August 1991. This was pure good fortune, as I had decided to take my holiday early that summer and was back in the USSR at the start of August. But many of my fellow-correspondents, who like me had no idea what was coming, were relaxing on beaches far away, and were taken totally by surprise.

We all know what happened next, the bungling of the plotters, the collapse of the coup, and the dissolution of Stalin’s gigantic, iron-bound empire in a matter of days. Ukraine simply seized its chance. Unlike the British Empire, which took decades to die, Moscow’s dominions fell from its grasp in a matter of weeks. By Christmas, the whole gigantic structure was finished, and several new nations were born, or reborn, often with borders which make the unending problems of Northern Ireland look simple. Unhappy minorities found themselves stranded under unfriendly new nationalist governments, Armenians under Azerbaijani rule, Ossetians and Abkhazians in Georgia, and so on. In many former Soviet states there were large Russian minorities who resented their new role as poverty-stricken aliens, and were resented back. In Crimea, a majority Russian population petitioned for a referendum on their future. They gathered almost 250,000 signatures which were technically enough to force a vote. But they were told to shut up and behave by the newly-enthroned nationalist government in Kiev.

To begin with, Russia objected. The idea that Russian dislike of Ukraine’s frontiers began with Vladimir Putin is simply not true. On August 26th 1991, two days after Ukraine’s walkout from the USSR, the then Russian President Boris Yeltsin (then much-admired in the West) warned that borders would have to be redrawn if Ukraine and other republics quit. Yeltsin believed that the Soviet-defined border between Russia and Ukraine would not work as an international frontier. It cut cities off from their hinterlands and compelled large numbers of ethnic Russians to live under Ukrainian rule. He said Moscow would simply not let neighbours secede from the Soviet Union and take large Russian-inhabited areas with them. Yeltsin’s spokesman, Pavel Voshchanov, specifically said this referred to the Donbass region and the Crimea in the Ukraine. The Donbass Region is of course the area around Donetsk and Lugansk, now in flames. We all know about Crimea now/

Ukraine’s then President, Leonid Kravchuk, reacted with fury, saying ‘Territorial claims are very dangerous’. Within a day, Yeltsin had backed down, presumably under American pressure. And in the three decades since, I have watched with mingled interest and dismay as the world’s statesmen have grappled with this completely unexpected problem. For the most part they have done so with all the grace and artistry of clowns juggling with jelly.

But one thing I have learned from this. I used to wonder how educated human beings got us into the World War One disaster in 1914, or the Suez catastrophe of 1956, or a dozen other bloody farces which could so easily have been avoided by a small portion of wisdom. Not any more. In the last 30 years or so, I have stopped wondering, and instead taken to worrying what idiotic thing they will do next.
 
Last edited:
More NATO made Putin do it theorising

"And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invading Ukraine.

Of course we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened.

He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders"

... From NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
 
More NATO made Putin do it theorising

"And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invading Ukraine.

Of course we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened.

He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders"

... From NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
It's amazing how many people failed to grasp the implications of NATO's policy on eastern Europe.

People tend to see it as a matter of abstract right and wrong as opposed to what is. The nature of the regime in Russia must have been obvious to NATO strategists all along, and such a regime was anticipated by the most pro-western Russian leaders in centuries, if not ever, in the late 1980s and early '90s. Yeltsin and Gaidar were among the most prominent of these, and both more or less predicted the long-term consequences of trying to isolate Russia and warned western leaders. Yeltsin was, intentionally or not, instrumental in bringing such a regime about. It doesn't matter whether more or less everybody in the west thinks this fear and paranoia, resting on experience of previously being isolated and the frequent dire consequences for Russia, isn't a problem any longer, but what a certain type of Russian, possibly the majority, thinks about it, and the special place Ukraine occupies in Russian history and Russian nationalist thinking (once again, not a matter of right or wrong but what is.) They see a leading US senator addressing Russia-hostile crowds in Kiev, while knowing that the very same US political and business elites have historically shown no tolerance for serious dissent in what the US has long called its own back yard (Chile, for instance, is a lot further from US borders than Ukraine is from Russia.) And Latin American dissent offered no military threat to the US or anybody else, either practically or theoretically. And they have long observed US-led interventions thousands of miles from US borders.

Ukraine will never quite recover from the inevitable consequences of this idiocy. The war industry is doing well out of it, however, so that's something. And the general feel good factor has given us westerners a real boost just when we needed one (Yemen, Syria and the various wars in Africa and other places that don't matter don't quite cut the mustard, and apart from maybe Assad, there's no serious Bond baddie like Putin). So it isn't all bad.
 
Last edited:
In these conversations I think people mistakenly read it as excusing Putin for expanding the war .. it's not, for me at least, about justifying behaviour and actions, it's about recognising the most basic nature of inter-imperial competition... this is what happens.... This is what the game of global dominance looks like....thousands of millions are dead as testament to the dynamic. This is standard routine procedure of recent history.

There's no 'good' side to pick. Hate the players and their game.
 
In these conversations I think people mistakenly read it as excusing Putin for expanding the war .. it's not, for me at least, about justifying behaviour and actions, it's about recognising the most basic nature of inter-imperial competition... this is what happens.... This is what the game of global dominance looks like....thousands of millions are dead as testament to the dynamic. This is standard routine procedure of recent history.

There's no 'good' side to pick. Hate the players and their game.
And the tragedy is that so many on the liberal left, which these days seems to encompass many (former?) Trots and anarchists, have forgotten that they once agreed with you. Quite possibly this is due to three or four decades of paying only lip-service to class politics while tail-ending the usual array of contemporary liberal obsessions and neuroses.
 
There is a good side to pick, which is the side of the people of Ukraine. It's beyond doubt that they choose to resist.
The impulse to choose sides in an inter-imperialist war is another reason why the genuine left has been reduced to nothing other than a bit of a curiosity.

It might be, in some part, due to the way society has been dumbed down, possibly due to mass media-driven social engineering. Many people these days have to act as though they're constantly under observation. It doesn't even require a 'totalitarian' state anymore, and the pressure to be seen as 'a good person,' as defined by accepted opinion, is immense. Mainstream right and mainstream left are often at each others' throats on the internet (with relatively little happening in real life, which suits both the liberal and right-wing ruling classes just fine), but they are driven by the same imbecilic impulses which have been imposed on them. Johnny Rotten where are you now? (Yes, he's remembered for a butter advert and spouting 'alt-right' tropes...)

I agree that most Ukrainians probably choose to resist, but as already said in this and other threads, in a situation imposed on them by forces they, like the rest of us, have absolutely no control over, and which could have been avoided. Their dead will not be remembered even though they will be wheeled out as a concept in annual memorials, in reality designed to glorify those who survived to get their clammy hands on society's economic assets (as will the Russian dead.) By then we will have moved on to the next war, and nobody outside Ukraine and Russia will be particularly interested. And eventually there will be another war that might involve us, possibly directly as civilians. Many of us dead ones.
 
A twitter thread about Sergey Karaganov, one of Russia’s imperialist thinkers and a proponent of the war in Ukraine. He believes Russia is ‘genetically authoritarian’.

 
Thing is Russia lost its Eastern European Empire it's former possessions had no desire to be in their sphere of influence. They get more of a say than the Russians do.
Nobody sane would suggest 3 PARA be garrisoend in Dublin due to Englands historic claims to Ireland and it's sphere of influence and security concens :rolleyes:.
But apprantly the Baltics and Poland and others should do whatever Vlad demands even though vlads troops had to fuck off as they weren't welcome anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom