I've tried to search for opinions on what's going on in Ukraine, but most posts are incredibly old. I'm not too educated on the matter myself (well, aside from keeping up most of the time with what cities are under whose control and all of that). I haven't really heard much about the geopolitical side of things, and it's hard to know what's disinfo or not; That's why I'd like to ask: What is your stance on the Ukraine war?
The war is a proxy war between NATO and Russia that started in 2014 after the Maidan coup. When NATO threatened to allow Ukraine to join, it was a major escalation that demanded a response from Russia. In that sense, their SMO is an act of self-defense. I unequivocally support Russia on this, not because I agree with the Russian government's domestic policy or long term vision for the world, but because NATO is the greater evil, and if they successfully contain Russia, then China is next, and we may never see a free world in our lifetimes.
I know exactly what you mean behind your innocent-looking comment. Do you think lenin was stupid? If lenin was here now i'm pretty sure he would recognize the obvious: The contradiction between usa, and the world's continued existence.
I must be gullible, because I thought that person's comment meant that we should read Lenin's work regarding imperialism. Like how we should want both imperialist countries to weaken as much as possible so that the workers can find a chance to take power. Only issues is that the true imperialist nations that have an interest in this war, NATO/US, don't have much to lose if Ukraine fails.
Any chance you could write out a deeper analysis on how this situation deviates from Lenin's writings on wars between imperial powers? Or at least point me to a source that talks about it more? The only things that really jump out to me are what I wrote about in the first paragraph.
Difference is, Russia is not imperialist, so it is not an interimperialist war but a national bourgeoisie country resisting the global imperial hegemon (which didn't exist yet in the time Lenin wrote that book), so it would also require reading Stalin's later clarifications and Mao's about contradictions.
Seriously, Lenin would be furious if he knew all those dogmatics interpret his work totally ignoring the conditions.
Do I support innocent civilians dying or workers being sent to fight and getting killed? No. Do I support stamping out of Nazis? Yes. Russia has a right to security guarantees on its border which the west has continually undermined for the last 30 years. Ukraine is being use as pawn to destroy Russia and Russia made the ugly decision of striking back. I welcome the downfall of NATO.
and most people shouldn't be downvoting me for saying that they support Russia and Z (which they do)
You have a history of bad takes on this topic so people probably thought you are being snarky or something.
there was this story i read a long time ago about an american soldier in iraq, talking to an iraqi interpreter who is smoking a cigarette, the american asks him why they were fighting each other (iraq and kuwait) despite them looking the same, dressing the same and, speaking the same language.
so the interpreter takes a long drag of his cigarette, (something along of the lines of) "they'll keep killing each other until they get tired of it and go home."
i may have gotten the countries wrong, but I know I got the general main line of the story remembered.
I'm new to lemmygrad, but i think that the general principle of Marxists Leninist is to liberate the working class. Then I think everything else breaks into strategies and etc which of course people have different stances on like moves in chess
some liberals feel putin is to blame, some people say nato expansion, and some lads are saying the 2009 recession was never properly dealt with - that we are now facing the contradictions of capitalism in the form of war.
at the end of it all, the war sucks and most likely foretelling of more conflicts (and subsequently more suffering)to come. (regardless the way the media wants to frame the war, it is the people who suffer)
it's an inter imperialist war, and if ww1 taught us anything it's not to side with any imperialists. even if you think it's a "lesser evil" they all want to control the whole world. their ambitions are to eat eachother & everything else
fr, the main enemy is at home. It's the task of the workers in the West to dismantle NATO and Western Imperialism. It cannot be defeated by losing an inter-imperialist war. If two imperialist camps fight they may establish a new imperialist hegemonic power but it's not in our interest to just change the imperialist powers but to abolish them.
The only way to achieve actual peace in this war is for the working class to unite against the ruling class. Unfortunately, the "left leaders" and so called "Communist parties" in Ukraine and Russia commit to a disgusting Burgfriedenpolitik just like the Social democrats did in WW1 supporting their national bourgeoisie in agitating the working class to commit fratricide.
The same disgusting position is held by many so called "leftists" in the West just with the exact same argument of the SPD in WW1 to "spread progressive politics" via imperialist domination of "totally more reactionary and evil than us" Russia.
There isn't a good side in this conflict. NATO doesn't care about Ukraine they just want to weaken Russia and Russia is trying to defend their imperialist ambitions. Anyone having any delusions about Putin being a genuine anti-imperialist should just listen to him condemning Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution.
It’s the task of the workers in the West to dismantle NATO and Western Imperialism
Ok go do that. Let us know how it works out.
The US working class benefit too much from the empire to overthrow it. Material conditions must be further degraded to get popular support for revolution. The war is lowering material condition for the working class in the EU and USA.
It is also raising the prospects for the working class in the global south. BRICS+ is giving them more bargaining power. Many imperialist collaborator governments will likely resist the new prospects increasing chances of revolutions in the global south. For decades socialist revolutions were put down by western hegemony but with their capability eroded by the war and the rise of the Sino-Russian alliance the west no longer has carte blanche to meddle.
All this points to the war being a boon for socialists and furthering the path towards revolution in multiple nations. The longer it goes on the bigger the benefits.
Prior to 2014, Ukraine has usually had Russian-friendly governments. Some more than others, but relations between the two countries were generally close, if sometimes strained.
In 2014 there was a coup in the Ukraine (or a revolution, or a series of protests that resulted in the president stepping down, whatever) called Euromaidan. These protests involved Neo-Nazi paramilitary groups (which are very common in Ukraine) marching in the streets. The government that emerged afterwards was solidly anti-Russian.
Separatists in the Donbass region (Eastern Ukraine, the parts that Russia is now occupying, which is about 50% Russian) immediately began trying to secede. Elections stopped being held in these regions, solidifying the anti-Russian government. Crimea, which is almost 100% Russian, was retaken by Russia with almost no resistance.
The Ukrainian War started in 2014 when the post-Euromaidan Ukrainian government began using artillery, snipers, and fascist paramilitary volunteers against the Donbass separatists. 2022 was just when the Russians decided to get involved.
The Russian government claims that the invasion was in order to "De-Nazify" Ukraine. The motivation to protect the Russian ethnic minority was also clear, but since Russia is a multi-ethnic federation, saying this sort of thing is a political no-no in Russia.
In reality, Russia invaded because Ukraine was considering membership in NATO. In 2008, Georgia was similarly considering membership in NATO. Russia then invaded and liberated the provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which remain independent to this day, and stationed troops in these regions permanently. This was done because, if they allowed Georgia into NATO, it would require NATO to defend Georgia; since NATO membership requires approval of all existing members, there is always going to be at least one member who is not eager for immediate war with Russia. This is the same thing that is happening in Ukraine: Russia is permanently occupying parts of Ukraine so that, if Ukraine were to join NATO, NATO would be obligated to "defend" them against Russia.
USA is controlling ukraine's government. They want to kill as many ukrainians and russians as possible. They must be stopped. Also, boris johnson prevented peace talks. To hell with him.
As long as the US continues to exist in the form it's in, it will either be at war or in a proxy war and people will be dying.
Big picture is, if Russia and Ukraine make peace, the US will start a new war somewhere else by invasion or proxy immediately afterwards.
So I'm not 100% on board with the sentiment that the war must end at any cost. We don't get peace if the war ends if it means the US will just kick off another one.
War is bad. But any scenario that diminishes US hegemony and its ability to wage war (whether that's in a peace treaty or in ongiong conflict) is preferable, because we'll never have peace in this world while those warmongers in DC are allowed to continue.
The first gulf war is an interesting thing to look at. Saddamn told the US state department he would invade Kuait because they were cross drilling into Iraqi oil fields and we're traditionally a 'part of Iraq'.
State department said we don't care
Of course, they did care and used that as cassus belli to attack Iraq and 'contain' Saddam which was the original intended consequence.
The war in Ukraine is the same. The neocons in the US have wanted Ukraine to open it's markets to blackrock and Goldman Sachs forever. They helped foment the coup and selected Ukrainians president. They knew Russia would invade if Ukraine started the process to join NATO.
The US wanted this war. It was a trap for Putin and because he is an idiot he fell for it. The goal is to weaken Russia , sell us LNG to Germany at 200% markup and flood Lockheed and Raytheon with billions of dollars. It's a win win for the US because no American boots on the ground they get to fight Russia via proxy until the last Ukrainian.
I'm totally against the war and old enough to understand the only way it ends is with a negotiated settlement.
It was a trap for Putin and because he is an idiot he fell for it.
You should read less NYT.
"Damned if you do damned if you don't" is not a "trap." Being lied to over and over is not a "trap." Putin was backed into a corner. He didn't want to fight but in the end it was either fight or let nazis and NATO live on Russia border and genocide Russian speaking civilians until they were ready to invade Russia itself.
If Putin is "an idiot" how did he manage to insulate Russia's entire economy from sanctions? He spent the whole time he was trying to avoid the fight also making contingencies for when the fight happened.
The war is hollowing out the EU. They have lost access to cheap Russian energy and so their manufacturing capability is being gutted. All they have left is their Financial capital and without industry to back it up it will disappear before they can rectify their energy situation. European companies are already moving to China.
While the MIC is gaining short term profits from the war overall it will be a major loss. Furthermore the war has shown the global south the need for an alternative to $US. BRICS+ will be direct competition for american dollar hegemony destroying its value. Any $ gains the MIC makes it will have to pay back ten fold to the global south who they traditionary exploited for raw materials. The global south will have alternative buyers that will give them fairer prices in $ which will cause $ to lose more value. On top of all that it has shown how flawed NATO weapon systems really are, how they fare against much cheaper weapons from Russia, and how slowly they are produced. Any nation looking at purchasing weapons supplies is going to consider Russia because they are better value for money by factors of 2 digits and they wont have decades long wait lists.
The material reality of things on the ground in the war and in economies of the nations involved is completely contrary to your post.
I agree with a lot of your points, it was a 'fucked if you do fucked if you don't' situation for Putin and actually I'm not even sure about the Great Man theory of history so even if someone else was leading Russia they would probably still have responded the same way. I don't know, it still feels like a trap though. And of course the dialectical analysis shows that by cutting Russia off the swift system the BRICS economic integration just intensifies and accelerates de-dollarisation.
But I stand by my comment about Putin being stupid. Calling it a police action without stating exact goals means he's already lost the information war. There also is no way to win this war unless he goes shock and awe and literally destroys the entire country. Which is not the goal. So the Russian military cant destroy everything to force a solution, and the US is loving it, just pouring infinite money, tanks, jets, climbing the escalation ladder. They intend to outspend Russia and force a domestic coup. Which also won't happen.
So it's a lose lose for everyone except the military industrial complex, Goldman Sachs and US LNG exporters
But I stand by my comment about Putin being stupid. Calling it a police action without stating exact goals means he’s already lost the information war.
But he didn't do that. Putin said exactly what the SMO was supposed to do. Putin has some serious flaws but being stupid isn't one of them. Stop reading the NYT. "because x is stupid/incompetent/insane/evil" is the weakest analysis you can do. It is almost never true and just shows that you don't understand the situation. It's marvel movie level thinking.
The stated aims of the SMO are Defence of the Donbas separatist states, Demilitarization, Denazification, and forcing Ukraine to stay neutral. Since Ukraine and the west proved they are pathological liars Russia's game plan changed a little and now they have incorporated the break away states into Russia proper but the other goals have stayed the same.
Ukraine's army will eventually collapse. They can't stand up against Russia forever. They cant recruit soldiers fast enough, The west cant manufacture weapons fast enough and even if they could they wouldn't want to give them away to a failed state. When that happens all that remains is tearing down some nazi monuments and installing a puppet government.
Again the MIC and LNG exporters win is a short lived boost that will ultimately accelerate their own downfall. Their wins are at the cost of their allies. USA are cannibalizing Europe to prop themselves up. This is only a win if you don't look past the immediate future.
Russia is currently fighting a war is with a client regime that US installed in Ukraine after overthrowing the democratically elected government in 2014. I generally agree with the reasoning for why Russia decided to start a preventative the war that Mearsheimer gives here.
While Russia has a reactionary capitalist regime, it is acting as a bulwark fighting against US global hegemony right now. NATO has been forced to devote practically all of its resources to the proxy war and this created room for the Global South to finally start shaking off western hegemony. We are seeing a major global realignment happening with countries moving off the dollar and BRICS rapidly expanding.
The war has also derailed US plans for containment of China, and it's clear that China is taking advantage of the additional time that Russia bought it. I expect that by the end of the war we will likely see the reverse moment of when USSR collapsed, and US led capitalist world order became dominant. This time around, it will be the capitalist order that crashes, and it will be replaced by socialist one led by China.
