Ukraine

[ViolentPanda]

I read his Bloodlands book last year and thought it was interesting. Everything I've read by him since has been shite.

I've read "Bloodlands™ and " The Red Prince". Snyder is great for facts, but (IMO) shite for interpretation and synthesis.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Looks like Co-Op may have raised his head a bit too far over the parapit now, by simply liking a post.
pathetic school playground mobbing...
that's what's killing this thread!

Really? I think that co-op is far more robust than you're giving them credit for. Perhaps you're bringing some grievance of your own to this?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Would any of you people like to hazard a guess at what American foreign policy is on Ukraine because I really don't have a clue?

American foreign policy is whatever benefits the USA.

 

[pocketscience]

Now you think Co-Op is being mobbed? Utter bollocks, we are having a discussion, one where various people including Co-Op and those that disagree are making points in a manner that does not resemble the school playground. If there is the occasional post that does not live up to this standard then thats sadly normal, but certainly not indicative of a mob.

So unless something changes and things actually end up going in the direction you are prematurely whining about, I'll have to file this in the same category as all those times someone whose opinion is not widely shared here decides that the reason is some mono thought clique here, as opposed to a load of disparate people happening to agree that someone said something shitty.

Prematurely whining?
I've just provided examples which characterise the root cause (in my opinion) to a problem you felt the need to highlight in a rather long post (if you like, whining).
Maybe you could provide your interpretation of BA's call-out post of Co-Op (because he had the audacity of liking one of CR's posts) if it wasn't to mob.

 

[pocketscience]

He then goes on to suggest that i then attacked the same poster

No I didn't. Read the post again.
eta: I provided the source, so I don't know how you come to the conclusion that I suggest you were part of the attack about chavs. Anyone can see you weren't.
My issue with you was the fact you were putting EO in an uncomfortable corner as to their background. At best it was rude, at worst it looked like some wierd public ethnic profiling exercise. If you really wanted to know, why didn't you use a private message?

 

[butchersapron]

No I didn't. Read the post again.

Oh you suggested it right enough. Suggesting it, was, after all, the whole point of your intervention.

 

[seventh bullet]

Whether he was hounded or not's going to be a matter of opinion, but your first response to that allegation was just to re-state the original crime and why it's a crime. I don't think many people are going to dispute that on here, it's become axiomatic.

ETA Just for clarity: I wasn't saying that 'chav' style snobbery is 'not new', it's that in an old-left, old Labour perspective it 'made sense' - i.e. wasn't reactionary or right wing. It was theoretically based on a slightly lite reading of Marx and stuff about the lumpenproletariat but also a very practical thing about a class publically proving itself to have the right to take over the bourgeois state by proving itself to possess the necessary values to do that, respectability, hard work, 'decency', all that stuff - often values portrayed as (and widely accepted as) national values, archetypically British. I used to canvass with a (w/c) guy in the 70s who would try not to let Labour Party posters go up in the windows of houses which had untidy front gardens because he thought it associated Labour with the wrong sort of people and he was pretty typical of Ealing North Labour Party in those days. A lot of anti-immigrant stuff in those days in working class suburbia - where I was brought up - was about unkempt front gardens (this maybe sounds ridiculous now but it was something I heard a lot).

Okay, thanks for clarifying what you meant by your earlier post. My reply was intended to be more about pocketscience's painting of the situation that occurred between EO, myself and a few others as hounding, or bullying or whatever. Sure, opinions aren't going to be changed on this, but it was in my view a decent enough (potty-mouthed as it was) response to something that is really nasty, something that in my opinion (and in the short-term at least) is going to get worse as standards of living continue to be eroded and the social expectations of many people continue to be dashed.

I notice (and elbows has got in first) that your reaction has been to see those who did call out EO on his classist behaviour as being too quick in writing off someone as a political enemy. And he's right about it not just being the word but the context in which a lot of 'chav-bashing' on here and elsewhere has taken place. I'll echo him in saying that long may it continue, and quite frankly I'm happy that the snotty little prick no longer posts here.

 

[elbows]

Prematurely whining?
I've just provided examples which characterise the root cause (in my opinion) to a problem you felt the need to highlight in a rather long post (if you like, whining).
Maybe you could provide your interpretation of BA's call-out post of Co-Op (because he had the audacity of liking one of CR's posts) if it wasn't to mob.

Oh it's one man mob now is it? A gang of one, how terribly intimidating.

My interpretation of BA's post is largely irrelevant, since I felt the need to make long-winded posts not because of such words of a single poster, but the silly suggestions relating to mobs and the playground.

The extent to which I have some common ground with your points involves the tedious reduction of Ukrainian issues to two cliched sides. This common ground is however limited by your apparent need to place yourself squarely on one of those poorly constructed sides, and your attempts to characterise the 'other side' as any kind of cohesive mob.

 

[pocketscience]

Okay, thanks for clarifying what you meant by your earlier post. My reply was intended to be more about pocketscience's painting of the situation that occurred between EO, myself and a few others as hounding, or bullying or whatever. Sure, opinions aren't going to be changed on this, but it was in my view a decent enough (potty-mouthed as it was) response to something that is really nasty, something that in my opinion (and in the short-term at least) is going to get worse as standards of living continue to be eroded and the social expectations of many people continue to be dashed.

I notice (and elbows has got in first) that your reaction has been to see those who did call out EO on his classist behaviour as being too quick in writing off someone as a political enemy. And he's right about it not just being the word but the context in which a lot of 'chav-bashing' on here and elsewhere has taken place. I'll echo him in saying that long may it continue, and quite frankly I'm happy that the snotty little prick no longer posts here.

The extent to which I have some common ground with your points involves the tedious reduction of Ukrainian issues to two cliched sides. This common ground is however limited by your apparent need to place yourself squarely on one of those poorly constructed sides, and your attempts to characterise the 'other side' as any kind of cohesive mob.

The reason I used that as an example is because it pretty much typifies the lowest denominator in this 2 sided spat bullshit that you were talking about.
At least when CR does a calls-out its done with backdrop of a rhetorical argument which includes actual information.

 

[seventh bullet]

No, he just puts them on ignore and then carries on regardless.

 

[co-op]

Maybe you could provide your interpretation of BA's call-out post of Co-Op (because he had the audacity of liking one of CR's posts) if it wasn't to mob.

I don't mind a bit of mobbing, it's a normal thing really. Anyone who posts on bulletin boards has to expect it to some extent. BA posts on here a lot more than anyone else so he has some weight just for that, but he also has weight because he's a very analytical & knowledgeable person so he also has cheerleaders, that's also normal. He and I disagree about quite a lot (I'm not always sure when or what) but very often I find his posts educational for me.

But his post about my liking of CR's post was a bit hard to understand. When he starts with the italics, it can get mysterious. It's the bulletin board equivalent of getting a funny look irl.

 

[rekil]

One low point had to be the appeal for sympathy for the helicopter gunship pilots that got shot down by the rebels because they're "working class".
Didn't see them calling for the same kind of understanding for the IDF Apache pilots in the Gaza thread though.

TBF mad posts (like the one you refer to here ^ which I missed) are not really the point because you are bound to get a few of them on any decent thread. I'm more interested in who posted it and what the response was, that would say more.

That was frogwoman who elaborated on why she was opposed to the escalation of the conflict, and was subsequently called a "scumfuck cunt", and accused (by CR, who else) of despising "all Russians" over some "jewish beef".

Btw sorry to break it to you CR, but I heard that your dashing hero, major Dowling of Argentinian military intelligence, died in 2000. The good news is that he escaped justice for crimes committed serving the junta at the Vesubio torture and detention centre. He gets the mention in this book by a communist militant.



If your Spanish is anything as good as your Russian and Ukrainian you'll plough through it in no time. Something to read on the plane the next time you head off to pal around with far right hoolies in Germany.

 

[DairyQueen]

The idea of uniqueness, specialness, and the tautological descriptions of a chosen people with an important mission, destiny or messianic role to play in the world is not something that is confined to the Russians. It's a feature of nationalisms elsewhere.

Eurasianism can be distinct from nationalism but does draw from intellectual currents (anti-western, or in response to western Europe but like the classical Eurasianists doing so by borrowing from western thought/intellectual heritage) that have fed into previous manifestations of Russian nationalism, not always seen as useful to the Russian state. I don't think Putin is a Eurasianist. It's that abuse or misunderstanding of the term again. Nationalists with reassertion on their minds and in their policies while being aware of Russia's geographical reality is not the same thing. The nationalists are wanting to deal with the reality of US-led containment/encirclement, and imperialist competition for control of the former Soviet Union's periphery.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Dugin's vision of the world does not involve nationalism or even nation-states. It's more radical than that. The world would be divided and ordered into civilisational zones or areas containing a mosaic of ethnically different peoples who nevertheless share historical and cultural bonds, all living within a strict hierarchy but supposedly harmonious because of those spacial/cultural links. The Russians and their superior culture, however, would (to paraphrase Laruelle earlier) be the cement in one particular area that holds everything together and the rest of the peoples within it merely the bricks of Russian dominance. It's still an imperialistic ideology. The Russians are destined to rule one area. An undemocratic, caste-like (but technologically advanced) conglomeration of peoples. A mixing or miscegenation of peoples (except for the elites) from other civilisational areas jeopardises the order. He has drawn from European 'new right' thinking and Traditionalism in this vision.

How would I draw a distinction between nationalism and Eurasinism? We'd need to look at a particular Eurasianist current, although I've crudely outlined Dugin's world.

I kind of guessed that you saw Eurasianism more-or-less a manifestation of Russian nationalism, or, at least, intertwined.

For Dugin, I never really got exactly the same impression but that might be the result of selective reading. My understanding is that he is a Russian nationalist, but all his theories are based on multi-polar worlds (with a fair bit of anti-Amercanism thrown in). That civilisational zones, or whatever he actually calls them, does ring a bell. Again, I got the impression he was more about his national sovereignty and individual cultures/states should be allowed to develop their own culture or nationalisms or whatever. I will try and fish out the link to that (I have to go now). I will read up on the New Right in Europe.

Have a watch of this though. It is quite interesting. It is Dugin talking about Israel and Jews. There are subtitles in English. You can actually watch a lot of short clips online of Dugin. Would be interesting to see what you make of it, and if you find anything that reinforces what you have been saying.

 

[seventh bullet]

I've explicitly said that it isn't necessarily the same thing, depending on which current we're looking at. Did you not read my post?

Dugin is not a nationalist. Not in the end. There will be no nation-states in Dugin's world. The Russian people, occupying a median position in Eurasia, are especially placed in one of these vast areas to keep it all together. People in their ethnically, historically appropriate lands will not clash with others as there will be no mixing of the likes of you and me with the people from other lands. People within their respective areas are free to develop their cultures and traditions in harmony because they all share in the same roots. But there will be top dogs, and the Russians will be among them.

 

[Humberto]

Bit dismayed as I like FW as everyone does. I assume I could find similar abuse of CR going back through the thread though.

 

[gimesumtruf]

Picky info guru's cop's v Blinking info guru's cop's = Fiiighhhttt

 

[SpackleFrog]

BA's call-out post of Co-op

At least when CR does a calls-out

 

[ViolentPanda]

I believe it's known as "double standards".

 

[DairyQueen]

I've explicitly said that it isn't necessarily the same thing, depending on which current we're looking at. Did you not read my post?

Dugin is not a nationalist. Not in the end. There will be no nation-states in Dugin's world. The Russian people, occupying a median position in Eurasia, are especially placed in one of these vast areas to keep it all together. People in their ethnically, historically appropriate lands will not clash with others as there will be no mixing of the likes of you and me with the people from other lands. People within their respective areas are free to develop their cultures and traditions in harmony because they all share in the same roots. But there will be top dogs, and the Russians will be among them.

I guess this is a definition issue. I would describe him as a Eurasianist and also a Russian nationalist. You would describe him as a Eurasianist.

I just found this.

The only feasible alternative in present circumstances is to found in the context of a multi-polar world. Multi-polarity can grant to any country and civilisation on the planet the right and the freedom to develop its own potential, to organise its own internal reality in accordance with the specific identity of its culture and people, to propose a reliable basis of just and balanced international relations amongst the world’s nations. Multi-polarity should be based on the principle of equity among the different kinds of political, social and economic organisations of these nations and states. Technological progress and a growing openness of countries should promote dialogue amongst, and the prosperity of, all peoples and nations. But at the same time it shouldn’t endanger their respective identities. Differences between civilisations do not have to necessarily culminate in an inevitable clash between them – in contrast to the simplistic logic of some American writers. Dialogue, or rather ‘polylogue’, is a realistic and feasible possibility that we should all exploit in this regard.

He certainly also talks about Greater Europe and Europe as a civilisation. Maybe I am just trying to make too much sense of his work.

 

[seventh bullet]

Isn't he talking about the here and now and what needs to be done?

The 'poles' he talks of are the vast zones of a future world and what it could look like.

Eurasianism rejects the center-outskirt model of the world. Instead, the Eurasian Idea suggests that the planet consists of a constellation of autonomous living spaces partially open to each other. These areas are not national-states, but a coalition of states, reorganized into continental federations or "democratic empires" with a large degree of inner self-government. Each of these areas is multipolar, including a complicated system of ethnic, cultural, religious and administrative factors.

Russians will dominate the northern part of the Pan-Eurasian Zone. This area (like the others) will not be governed through one huge state but several states will associate. But the nation-state with its own territorial distinction and following its own particular interests at the expense of others is too narrow for him. A supposedly new form of sovereignty will emerge.

 

[pocketscience]

I believe it's known as "double standards".

Nice job of taking that second quote out of its context.
Let me spell it out the difference:
What BA does is call-out for call-outs sake (i.e hey everybody, look what this poster just did - adding nothing to general discussion other than furthering the polarization of the two fractions)
What CR does is while putting his point across (usually in the form of a rant) he'll name someone as a reference to a certain viewpoint, which is on topic. I suppose technically it's not a call-out and I shouldn't have used the term.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nice job of taking that second quote out of its context.
Let me spell it out the difference:
What BA does is call-out for call-outs sake (i.e hey everybody, look what this poster just did - adding nothing to general discussion other than furthering the polarization of the two fractions)

Interesting. You take it as "hey look...". I take it as "this person is in error because....".
perhaps, as you're so fond of context, you could acknowledge that how you "feel" about a poster will inform the context in which you view their posts?

What CR does is while putting his point across (usually in the form of a rant) he'll name someone as a reference to a certain viewpoint, which is on topic. I suppose technically it's not a call-out and I shouldn't have used the term.

Sure, he'll name someone, whether or not he's misrepresenting them, abusing them or traducing them, he'll certainly name them.

 

[SpackleFrog]

What BA does is call-out for call-outs sake

technically it's not a call-out/QUOTE]

 

[Coolfonz]

None of the posts in this thread seem to be about any other posts in this thread anymore.

 

[Casually Red]

For what its worth CR seems to know whats going on in the round. Not sure about the ignoring people he doesn't agree with. In fact thats fucking stupid. But apart from that respect to the guy, particularly cos he crosses the Urban mafiosos who defend their territory but never say anything. Whereas CR does at least.

i dont ignore people for disagreeing with me..almost everyone does. Ive only got 3 people on ignore because theyve been persuing petty and obsessive internet feuds and grudges ...one was Delroy Booth whos no longer with us. If they werent on ignore the thread would be plastered with personalised grudges and insults being acted out endlessly. Because thats what was happening frequently on a number of other threads. Im doing myself and everyone else a favour by simply not indulging it.

 

[Casually Red]

in that part of the world however its a very different social phenomenon. Tens of millions of people were slaughtered . Theres a burning pride in those people that they were the ones to physically destroy nazi might at an incalculable human and social cost ..leaving the westerners to mop up the dregs of the reserves . it defines their outlook and sense of self in many ways and has indelibly marked them as a people..who were afterall categorized and treated as subhumans.
Only after operation Barbarossa, they were quite comfortable cosying up to the the Nazis before that, or is it a tad embarrassing to mention that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660668

Philip aged 16 at the 1937 funeral of his elder sister Cecile, flanked by relatives in SS and Brownshirt uniforms.
One row back in the cortege in Darmstadt, western Germany, was his uncle, Lord Mountbatten, wearing a Royal Navy bicorn hat.

Another picture shows his youngest sister, Sophia, sitting opposite Hitler at the wedding of Hermann and Emmy Goering.

Explaining the attraction of the Nazis, 84-year-old Prince Philip told an American academic: "There was a great improvement in things like trains running on time and building. There was a sense of hope after the depressing chaos of the Weimar Republic.

"I can understand people latching on to something or somebody who appeared to be appealing to their patriotism and trying to get things going. You can understand how attractive it was."

He added that there was 'a lot of enthusiasm for the Nazis at the time, the economy was good, we were anti-Communist and who knew what was going to happen to the regime?'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-379036/Prince-Philip-pictured-Nazi-funeral.html

 

[Casually Red]

Putin could have been the voice of reason when this mess first kicked off

putin was the person who publicly warned Yanukovic not to use troops against the protestors and made clear hed have no Russian support if he did. He was also the person who facilitated peace talks between Yanukovic and his opponents..and a peace deal between them..that the fascsists then reneged upon and mounted a putsch instead .Openly encouraged and supported by western leaders .
He was also publicly calling for tripartite talks between Russia Ukraine and the EU from the very beginning to resolve the impasse over Ukrainian association . Calls that were totally ignored and rioters openly encouraged instead by an EU that persued a policy of ultimatums and confrontation ,rather than peaceful negotiations. It took the EU over 7 months to even acknowlege Russia has legitimate economic interests in Ukraine .
He was the voice of reason that continually pointed out this western policy of aggression ,confrontation and arrogance in Ukraine would have disastrous consequences. Which it most certainly did.

 

[Casually Red]

The reason I used that as an example is because it pretty much typifies the lowest denominator in this 2 sided spat bullshit that you were talking about.
At least when CR does a calls-out its done with backdrop of a rhetorical argument which includes actual information.

i dont think ive ever consciously done a call out though . Everyone usually disagrees with me so itd be a bit pointless.

and just for claritys sake theres a post by yet another asshole nursing an internet grudge that insinuates I called Frogwoman a scumfuck cunt . Most definitely wasnt me and its not something Id remotely approve of . I generally agree with her psost when it comes to subjects other than this one.

 

[Casually Red]

I'm not going to get into a debate because I'm still not sure what I think and I don't think I have accurate enough information on what's going on, so I prefer to just lurk and read. I am sympathetic to the people in Donetsk and Luhansk who are facing a full scale military assault, however, it does seem like people have posted a fair bit of evidence to suggest that there are some far-right Russian elements involved too. You don't seem to have really refuted them satisfactorily. It seems to me that both sides of the conflict are heterogeneous in their ideological make-up, so I'm not sure how helpful it is to cast it as a pure anti-fascist struggle, given that most of the government in Kiev are not fascists and certainly some of the rebels are fascists.

I havent remotely refuted claims that Russian far right elements have assisted the rebel side because they plainly have. What I have done though is post evidence that russian fascists are also heavily represented among the Juntas openly neo nazi militias and refuted the claim that because rebel military ranks are tainted by the presence of a few scumbags they are in turn the ideological equivalent of the forces arrayed and agenda arrayed against the people of Donbass.. As well as pointing out the reason theres a military assault against the population of Donbassn the first place is because theyve rejected a state they percieve to be dominated by a pro fascist ideology and whose leaders openly call them subhumans in public statements. A government that rehabilitates nazi war criminals and glorifies them as national heroes while outlawing left wing parties and driving them from public life by both legislative and extra judicial violent means is very simply a pro fascist government. They dont need to be card carrying nazi party members to be pro fascist ,to be glorifying fascists , to be arming and enabling fascists, to be spouting fascist racial insults and to be behaving as fascists persuing a fascist agenda .

 

[Casually Red]

Yes there was a lot about the fascist/ultranationalist types that seem to take over the Maidan and it's the kind of thing I'm grateful to have U75 for since there was nothing about this elsewhere. But I got a pretty strong impression that the main anarchist line on here was to defend the Kiev regime despite this, or at any rate the Kiev-oriented pov. You don't have to be an anti-US, anti-imperialist Russiaphile to find that a bit weird.

Anyway I've just been called out on liking a CR post which makes the point that there are a lot of people in the east of Ukraine who are genuinely framing this war as an anti-fascist war and that's at least partly because the Kiev regime looks a lot like it's invoking a Ukrainian fascist history to mobilise its population.

they were also posting and approving of an extremely treacherous statement that emanated from a bunch of Ukrainian anarchists calling for the international isolation of Ukrainian left wing groups just as the coup regime set about destroying them and driving them from public life . Not a single word of disapproval at that type of treachery and opportunism. Absolutely no analysis or questioning of why these anarchists had been engaging in joint political demonstrations for years with the very people they were now calling upon international leftists to repudiate ...or questioning its very convenient timing . Basically they seem to have actively engaged in an attempt to provide fascsist withpolitical cover as they set about destroying leftists. Active collaboration that anti fascists on here expressed approval for.