Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

Spandex said:
When people talk about NATO expansion as a cause of the Russian invasion of Ukraine it tends to fall into a which side are you on argument - Yes it did! No it didn't! Well maybe a bit...

There's rarely much discussion of of how Nato expanded, who pushed for it and when. It's a big topic. There's all kinds of angles to come at it from.

As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed the new countries of the former Warsaw Pact were clamouring to join NATO. It was an insurance against future invasion by Russia - there's lots of history there, going back well before the 1917 revolution - and it was an entry point to joining the western capitalist system - NATO is effectively the military of Western capitalism.

At first the Bush administration wasn't keen - the (iirc) Lithuanian President was told it would never happen, although by the end of the Bush presidency in 1992 the thought was occurring in parts of the administration that maybe NATO expansion might be a good idea for the US. Clinton was keen on the idea from the start. While there were ideas such as disbanding NATO or working towards Russia joining floating about, Clinton wanted to keep NATO as an insurance while working to bring Russia into the western capitalist system - all that money washing about from privatising the Russian state, western governments wanted to get their hands on it.

So it was both the US and the new Eastern European states that wanted NATO expansion.

But there is a lot more to Russian-western relations that has led to this war than the Russian state feeling threatened by NATO. Russian nationalism, wanting to keep Russian money Russian (well, for the Russian elite), has meant Russia has had an increasingly antagonistic relationship with the west, who've been eager to "make Russia a Democracy", which is code for bringing Russia into the western capitalist system so that international companies can get their hands on all that booty those Russian oligarchs want to keep for themselves (as long as the Russian government lets them; get too big for their boots and they find themselves falling out of windows or having a polonium tea party).

It's Zelensky's eagerness to turn Ukraine towards the EU, towards western capitalism, away from what Russian nationalists see as Ukraine's rightful place as part of Russia, that has led to the war more than NATO expansion, although joining NATO is a symbol of, a part of joining that system
Click to expand...
Good post.

Given Russia's behaviour, it's likely that a significant number of lives in the Baltic states have been saved by them becoming part of NATO.

If Ukraine had managed to join NATO at some point before 2014, there would probably be a significant number of dead Russians and Ukrainians still alive today too.
 
Spandex said:
When people talk about NATO expansion as a cause of the Russian invasion of Ukraine it tends to fall into a which side are you on argument - Yes it did! No it didn't! Well maybe a bit...

There's rarely much discussion of of how Nato expanded, who pushed for it and when. It's a big topic. There's all kinds of angles to come at it from.

As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed the new countries of the former Warsaw Pact were clamouring to join NATO. It was an insurance against future invasion by Russia - there's lots of history there, going back well before the 1917 revolution - and it was an entry point to joining the western capitalist system - NATO is effectively the military of Western capitalism.

At first the Bush administration wasn't keen - the (iirc) Lithuanian President was told it would never happen, although by the end of the Bush presidency in 1992 the thought was occurring in parts of the administration that maybe NATO expansion might be a good idea for the US. Clinton was keen on the idea from the start. While there were ideas such as disbanding NATO or working towards Russia joining floating about, Clinton wanted to keep NATO as an insurance while working to bring Russia into the western capitalist system - all that money washing about from privatising the Russian state, western governments wanted to get their hands on it.

So it was both the US and the new Eastern European states that wanted NATO expansion.

But there is a lot more to Russian-western relations that has led to this war than the Russian state feeling threatened by NATO. Russian nationalism, wanting to keep Russian money Russian (well, for the Russian elite), has meant Russia has had an increasingly antagonistic relationship with the west, who've been eager to "make Russia a Democracy", which is code for bringing Russia into the western capitalist system so that international companies can get their hands on all that booty those Russian oligarchs want to keep for themselves (as long as the Russian government lets them; get too big for their boots and they find themselves falling out of windows or having a polonium tea party).

It's Zelensky's eagerness to turn Ukraine towards the EU, towards western capitalism, away from what Russian nationalists see as Ukraine's rightful place as part of Russia, that has led to the war more than NATO expansion, although joining NATO is a symbol of, a part of joining that system
Click to expand...
agree and i'd add to that the central role of western powers in shaping post soviet Russia, a big and ongoing piece of work for them...and before 1989 in shaping soviet russia also
 
bluescreen said:
Thanks. That went over my head.
How many class analyses are there, how do you define class and who are you to define it and what criteria does one employ to prefer one analysis over another or are they all equally valid?
Click to expand...
Like I said, an example of what I was criticising.

There are tens, probably hundreds of threads about how class, in socialist terms, is defined - here's a relatively recent one. The analysis one uses to (attempt) to understand events is linked to the politics one holds. Just as your opposition to thinking about class struggle is linked to your liberal, and ultimately nationalist, politics.
 
ska invita said:
more likely it wouldve made the war happen sooner
Click to expand...
Why do you say that?

Russia hasn't gone anywhere near the Baltic states since they joined NATO. What makes you think Russia would have taken the risk of attacking a Ukraine that was a member of NATO if they'd joined at the same time as Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia?

Completely hypothetical, I know, and of course, Ukraine wasn't seeking membership at the time, but being a member of NATO has proven to be an extremely good bet for eastern European states that have been targets of Russian aggression in the past.
 
redsquirrel said:
Like I said, an example of what I was criticising.

There are tens, probably hundreds of threads about how class, in socialist terms, is defined - here's a relatively recent one. The analysis one uses to (attempt) to understand events is linked to the politics one holds. Just as your opposition to thinking about class struggle is linked to your liberal, and ultimately nationalist, politics.
Click to expand...
Please. I am not entirely stupid. I can begin to understand how class works in Russia and how it works in Ukraine. I see Russian elites employing Russian working classes to attack Ukrainians of all classes.
I don't understand how you think the two interconnect and collide to exonerate Russian aggression. Nor do I understand how you think my own understanding of class impedes my understanding. I am western middle class and therefore implicit?

Not intending to be awkward, just one of the hyperprivileged utterly clueless.
 
Spandex said:
It's Zelensky's eagerness to turn Ukraine towards the EU, towards western capitalism, away from what Russian nationalists see as Ukraine's rightful place as part of Russia, that has led to the war more than NATO expansion, although joining NATO is a symbol of, a part of joining that system
Click to expand...

Zekensky is a figurehead reflecting the views of a very large proportion of the Ukrainian population. The eagerness not to be a Russian vassal preceded his rise to power His role is to stay in Kyiv, make rousing speeches and not get killed. As he is an actor, he does this quite well. The deep bunkers help.

As to Ukraine turning towards Western Capitalism. The Russian elites from Putin down, as well as their Ukrainian counterparts did that years ago. It's Western financial institutions that guard and manage their wealth, not Russian ones, and Europe is the primary market for the hydrocarbons that made those fortunes. Russia has been a central and increasingly powerful part of that system for three decades. Why do you think that Mandelson and Osborne were on Deripaska's yacht all those years ago?
 
bluescreen said:
Please. I am not entirely stupid. I can begin to understand how class works in Russia and how it works in Ukraine. I see Russian elites employing Russian working classes to attack Ukrainians of all classes.
I don't understand how you think the two interconnect and collide to exonerate Russian aggression. Nor do I understand how you think my own understanding of class impedes my understanding. I am western middle class and therefore implicit?

Not intending to be awkward, just one of the hyperprivileged utterly clueless.
Click to expand...
Well for a start I have never said, or even implied, that a class analysis "exonerate Russian aggression".
I've not said that because it's bollocks, there is not linkage between a class analysis and support/apologism for this invasion, my view is, and always has been, that the actions of the Russian state and capital - against both Ukrainian and Russian workers - are murderous and vile.

You state that "Ukrainians of all classes" are being attacked, the implication (perhaps unconscious) you are making here is that there is no class struggle in Ukraine, which is absurd.
Are Ukrainian workers and oligarchs in the same boat? Has the exploitation of Ukrainian labour by Ukrainian capital stopped? Of course not. So the class struggle is still occurring. And the conflict between labour, capital and state - in the Ukraine, in Russian, and further afield - is a key factor in this war, just as is in any war involving capitalist actors.
 
Last edited:
tim said:
Zekensky is a figurehead reflecting the views of a very large proportion of the Ukrainian population. The eagerness not to be a Russian vassal preceded his rise to power His role is to stay in Kyiv, make rousing speeches and not get killed. As he is an actor, he does this quite well. The deep bunkers help.

As to Ukraine turning towards Western Capitalism. The Russian elites from Putin down, as well as their Ukrainian counterparts did that years ago. It's Western financial institutions that guard and manage their wealth, not Russian ones, and Europe is the primary market for the hydrocarbons that made those fortunes. Russia has been a central and increasingly powerful part of that system for three decades. Why do you think that Mandelson and Osborne were on Deripaska's yacht all those years ago?
Click to expand...
You clearly have either no idea what a figurehead is or no idea of the role of the Ukrainian president. Or you have no idea what a figurehead is and no idea of the role of the Ukrainian president, which is the most likely alternative
 
TBF Russia has launched attacks on NATO members. Sailsbury for one; nerve agent use killing a British civilian and injuring other people . Fucking government was too wedded to cheap energy, and the party of government too wedded to Russian gold for party funding to call them to account.
 
redsquirrel said:
Well for a start I have never said, or even implied, that a class analysis "exonerate Russian aggression".
I've not said that because it's bollocks, there is not linkage between a class analysis and support/apologism for this invasion, my view is, and always has been, that the actions of the Russian state and capital - against both Ukrainian and Russian workers - are murderous and vile.

You state that "Ukrainians of all classes" are being attacked, the implication (perhaps unconscious) you are making here is that there is no class struggle in Ukraine, which is absurd.
Are Ukrainian workers and oligarchs in the same boat? Has the exploitation of Ukrainian labour by Ukrainian capital stopped? Of course not. So the class struggle is still occurring. And the conflict between labour, capital and state - in the Ukraine, in Russian, and further afield - is a key factor in this war, just as is in any war involving capitalist actors.
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the trouble to reply.
I wouldn't call the place of conflict "the" Ukraine because I don't regard it as a Russian outpost.

No, of course I don't think there's no class struggle in Ukraine, but I do think the struggle against invasion takes precedence for most citizens.
 
Pickman's model said:
You clearly have either no idea what a figurehead is or no idea of the role of the Ukrainian president. Or you have no idea what a figurehead is and no idea of the role of the Ukrainian president, which is the most likely alternative
Click to expand...
I know that Ukrainian Presidents don't last very long. They've had four since 2010. They come to power with oligarch backing, promising new clean politics and get kicked out when they start to tarnish. And despite all the obsessing about colour revolutions, the reality is that they are vulnerable to popular protests in a way that political leaders in France, the UK the USA and Russia are not.
 
tim said:
I know that Ukrainian Presidents don't last very long. They've had four since 2010. They come to power with oligarch backing, promising new clean politics and get kicked out when they start to tarnish. And despite all the obsessing about colour revolutions, the reality is that they are vulnerable to popular protests in a way that political leaders in France, the UK the USA and Russia are not.
Click to expand...
So my preferred option is the right one
 
tim said:
Zekensky is a figurehead reflecting the views of a very large proportion of the Ukrainian population. The eagerness not to be a Russian vassal preceded his rise to power His role is to stay in Kyiv, make rousing speeches and not get killed. As he is an actor, he does this quite well. The deep bunkers help.
Click to expand...
Zelensky is more than just a figurehead. He's the President. Political leaders, within the many limits on their power - constitutional, political, economic, social, cultural, military - can lead a country in a certain direction. And Zelensky is leading Ukraine towards EU membership. He might be a here today, gone tomorrow politician, but you might have noticed leaving the EU isn't a simple matter.

tim said:
As to Ukraine turning towards Western Capitalism. The Russian elites from Putin down, as well as their Ukrainian counterparts did that years ago. It's Western financial institutions that guard and manage their wealth, not Russian ones, and Europe is the primary market for the hydrocarbons that made those fortunes. Russia has been a central and increasingly powerful part of that system for three decades.
Click to expand...
Russia has embraced capitalism, which has meant economic engagement with the west, but it hasn't embraced western liberal democratic capitalism, much to the west's dismay.

tim said:
Why do you think that Mandelson and Osborne were on Deripaska's yacht all those years ago?
Click to expand...
Trying to get their sticky fingers on some of those Russian billions for western companies.
 
The popular desire for European Union membership long precedes Zekensky's rise to power. It was a chief objective of those protesting in 2014 and the earlier "Orange" uprising, so Zekensky is not taking a radical step. He's following popular demands. As to the difficult of leaving the EU, the costs to the UK have been economic, which is hardly surprising as it is an economic union. Ukrainians, presumably, amongst other things are eyeing the economic benefits that their near neighbours have experienced.

The so-called West doesn't care about Liberal Democratic Capitalism, whatever that may be. Business is business regardless of the politics of the regimes involved. We still love the dictatorships of Central Asia for example and African dictatorships, including Britain's special friend, Rwanda, can do no harm. The Russian's caused embarrassment by launching a war they couldn't win.

As to sticky fingers for Western companies. The oligarch class were focused on sorting their own financial affairs and British and other politicians were their willing clients. There was never much capital investment by Western companies in Russia and when, for example, BP got kicked out the British government did nothing. The Tories and Labour were desperate for party funding from the Russians that's why they were on that yacht. Obviously personal financial advantage would have also been an attraction.
 
tim said:
I know that Ukrainian Presidents don't last very long. They've had four since 2010. They come to power with oligarch backing, promising new clean politics and get kicked out when they start to tarnish. And despite all the obsessing about colour revolutions, the reality is that they are vulnerable to popular protests in a way that political leaders in France, the UK the USA and Russia are not.
Click to expand...
How many PMs have we had since 2010?
 
tim said:
The popular desire for European Union membership long precedes Zekensky's rise to power. It was a chief objective of those protesting in 2014 and the earlier "Orange" uprising, so Zekensky is not taking a radical step. He's following popular demands. As to the difficult of leaving the EU, the costs to the UK have been economic, which is hardly surprising as it is an economic union. Ukrainians, presumably, amongst other things are eyeing the economic benefits that their near neighbours have experienced.

The so-called West doesn't care about Liberal Democratic Capitalism, whatever that may be. Business is business regardless of the politics of the regimes involved. We still love the dictatorships of Central Asia for example and African dictatorships, including Britain's special friend, Rwanda, can do no harm. The Russian's caused embarrassment by launching a war they couldn't win.

As to sticky fingers for Western companies. The oligarch class were focused on sorting their own financial affairs and British and other politicians were their willing clients. There was never much capital investment by Western companies in Russia and when, for example, BP got kicked out the British government did nothing. The Tories and Labour were desperate for party funding from the Russians that's why they were on that yacht. Obviously personal financial advantage would have also been an attraction.
Click to expand...

From what I can see Putin and his cronies and most of the former Soviet territories are primarily about financial plundering their own citizens extracting as much raw materials as possible and selling to the west and lining their own pockets.

There’s little investment in education, services and uplifting outside of a narrow band of the population and the odd prestige project - projects usually focused on resource extraction or celebrating the rulers ego.

Part of the reason for th invasion is that Putin wants to keep doing this to Ukraine and part of the reason for the revolution in Ukraine is that they don’t want this state of affairs to continue.
 
Last edited:
Artaxerxes said:
From what I can see Putin and his cronies and most of the former Soviet territories are primarily about financial plundering their own citizens extracting as much raw materials as possible and selling to the west and lining their own pockets.

Part of the reason for th invasion is that Putin wants to keep doing this to Ukraine and part of the reason for the revolution in Ukraine is that they don’t want this state of affairs to continue.
Click to expand...
Ukrainian has its own plundering elites too. The primary reason for the invasion was that it was a populist move that the regime assumed they would get away with as they did in 2014.
 
tim said:
Ukrainian has its own plundering elites too. The primary reason for the invasion was that it was a populist move that the regime assumed they would get away with as they did in 2014.
Click to expand...


Yes that’s covered in former Soviet territories part of my post.

Putin wants another Belarus in Ukraine and used to have it. The Ukrainians have cut that off and are realliging slowly towards the west. Everything from Russia since then is about trying to put Putins oligarchs back in charge of it.
 
Back to actual news

Bit of an own goal ...

SU-34 'accidentally' bombed Belgorod last night, very lucky that no-one was actually killed.
That'll definitely be an interview without tea / biscuits and probably other consequences.
As Belgorod is a waypoint on trips to bomb Ukraine, I'm very surprised if this will be the only occurrence.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ukraine war: Russian warplane accidentally bombs own city

A dramatic blast which shook residents of Belgorod is being blamed on an accidental air strike.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
strung out said:
Good post.

Given Russia's behaviour, it's likely that a significant number of lives in the Baltic states have been saved by them becoming part of NATO.

If Ukraine had managed to join NATO at some point before 2014, there would probably be a significant number of dead Russians and Ukrainians still alive today too.
Click to expand...

What were the reasons that Ukraine didn't manage to join NATO at any point before 2014?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

platinumsage
Ukraine and the Russian invasion, Feb 2022 - tangentially related crap
28 29 30 31 32
Replies
956
Views
49K
yield
Y
tim
The 2023 Russian Coup.
51 52 53 54 55
Replies
2K
Views
65K
_Russ_
_Russ_
Dogsauce
The Russian defenestration thread
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
platinumsage
Ukraine invasion memes and viral content
70 71 72 73 74
Replies
2K
Views
119K
The39thStep
The39thStep
Pickman's model
Ukraine after the war
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
phildwyer
phildwyer
Back
Top Bottom