3 years before they even allowed sale of 3rd party F-16s and a nonstop barrage about how effective the 90s era surplus we sold to Ukraine was gonna magically win the war.
I got banned from NCD for sharing this sentiment saying that there was literally no outcome where the US would allow Ukraine to join NATO, regardless of the acting government.
NCD is basically a NATO fanclub, so that checks out.
Good Nazi is a dead nazi
Yet you support russia, interesting juxtaposition
do go on
They draw swasticas on their minds litary vehicles.
Should just buy a tesla
And russians have neonazis congrats.
Every western country has neonazis, but only Ukraine has them in top levels of government and military.
Only Ukraine? You are one of those guys who saw Elon’s “gesture” and thought “holly-molly! what an awkward-moving guy”?
Nah, Elon did a nazi salute. Fascism in US shouldn’t shocking to anybody who’s even minimally historically literate. German nazis pretty much used the US as the model after all.
The only thing worst than a strong enemy are weak allies.
With rare exception (Israel) America can seem downright schizo from administration to administration.
This was always Ukraine’s fate.
The OG coup happened under the Obama admin, the far-right were forced into government under Trump pt I, Ukraine was forced to sell off state assets and take billions in loans by the Biden admin, and now the US is preparing to pick the bones clean over the next decades.
It’s nice that yall are recognizing that the US isn’t there to help the Ukrainian people now, but we’re all gonna repeat this next war.
I stopped being Charlie Brown falling for the football 23 years go, when I saw that the consent manufacturing for the second Iraq war rested on no hard evidence.
Edit to add that the bone picking has been going on for two years already. Everything must go, including seaports.
Libya was what got me, i was a chump cheering while i watched it on CNN but the more I thought about it the less sense it made then i read the shock docturine and some chomsky. Libya went from the highest score for quality of life in africa to literal slave markets. For what? So some slimy fucking americans can take their resources instead of negotiating for them?
Rome creates a desert and calls it peace.
Not even just changes in administration. The U.S. will often suddenly move on or just decide you will work better as a villain for internal politics. The US basically told Saddam Hussein that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait only to then use that invasion as justification to make him a boogeyman for the next decade.
That’s not what happen.
Who would’ve thought the government that installed a far right government in a coup wouldn’t have the best intentions?!
See, I can’t tell if you’re talking about America, Russia, or Ukraine.
I get what you’re saying, but to clarify I was speaking of the 2014 Maidan Coup where the US installed a far-right puppet government.
And your evidence for the US installing this government is what exactly?
Let me say this as a westerner - if someone all of a sudden tried to put me in a Putinist puppet state, shit would burn. To the ground.
Im assuming you aren’t American, then 👀
Sure, and Russia had their right-wing coup in 1991, and America is currently doing a self-coup.
People get these confused a lot, but russia has 2 coups in the 90s-
1991 was a failed anti-reformist “left wing” coup that deposed Gorbachev and ended with the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin in power.
1993 was a successful right wing self-coup that allowed Yeltsin to fully consolidate power away from the Russian parliament and towards the presidency. More hamfisted and violent, but in essence similar to what is happening in the US right now
The US was taken over in a coup when Kennedy was assassinated. We’ve been ruled by the CIA & Mossad ever since.
Eh, while they’re part of maintaining the status quo, we’re ruled by capital, and that was true before Kennedy too.
And the CIA has always been an attack dog of the capitalists. That’s its whole mission.
Someone has to pay for the weapons. Duhh
US is fatal even for itself
US is in a state of slow implosion. Rest of the world needs to look at collaborating while excluding the US.
My guess is China will fill the void left by the disintegration of USAID in order to boost its global standing.
I strongly encourage all nations to begin violating US intellectual property rights. Nations like India already do so with pharmaceuticals.
Eventually other nations will need to take on the mantle of tech and pharmaceutical research and development and we don’t want to live in a world where all this progress is lost.
Americans have chosen to nuke their own democracy and we need to minimize the damage done to the rest of the world as much as possible.
Our implosion isn’t so slow these days.
My guess is China will fill the void left by the disintegration of USAID in order to boost its global standing.
China will take large chunks. But I think we will also see a decentralization as china won’t be able to take it all. Countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil and so on will probably increase their regional soft powers a lot.
This process also already started years ago, but will be catalyzed by this.
Russophobia has been the big disease, really created by US/USAID/NED/CIA. Europe seems to need a moment to let go, but if US isn’t forcing them into it, the rest of the world has already been open to Russia and China. Trump is literally forcing the world to liberate itself from US. The US is still a nice market, but China is much larger to sell into, and tariff wars are not likely to bring investments into the US.
A multipolar world makes as much obvious sense as democracy. But it is pretty remarkable that US is pushing for it now.
The monumental level of troll farming performed by the Russian state suggests they are deserving of few allies.
Europe seems to need a moment to let go, but if US isn’t forcing them into it, the rest of the world has already been open to Russia and China
I mean, what would Europe need from russia? We’re currently more of a “global power” then they are. Only countries seriously aligning themselves with Russia those days are either extremely weak and near russia and so have 0 choice in the matter or try to play both sides for fun and profit LARPing as Tito.
We’re currently more of a “global power” then they are.
There’s a reason why the peace talks for Ukraine are between the US and Russia and the EU isn’t invited. Nobody takes Europe seriously anymore. The only thing resembling global power that Europeans have is their remaining colonies.
what would Europe need from russia?
Resources is big one, including infrastructure already in place for energy. Most of the world sides with Russia through this conflict. Even some US colonies have done well playing both sides. Russia is also an export market. World needs Russia to limit global warming. Futile attempts to destroy it, won’t work.
Cheap energy, labor, and resources and a slightly greater degree of independence from America.
Russia also still holds a lot of their traditional soft power in many countries, including several EU countries. They also greatly increased their softpower by helping to get far right parties into power or at least signinificant influence in several EU countries (like Orban or Germany just 2 days ago).
On the other hand Russia manouvered itself into a very weak geostrategical position lately (Ukraine and Syria). Everyone noticed that and this will likely lead to some restructuring in several regions, unlikely to be in Russias favour.
I currently find it really hard to make assumptions about Russias role in the mid-term future. That is also, why I didn’t mention Russia in my post.
I don’t see any country being able to engineer coups by supporting terrorists as effectively as the US, so I don’t see Russia or other local powers replacing the US’s influence in countries where the left presents a meaningful alternative to neoliberalism.
Going to start threatening to bomb Texas if it doesn’t hand over its oil reserves, at this rate.
history truly is a flat circle
This image is almost 3 years old already lmao.
If any libs want to learn how tankies see the future you might want to read about the past for once. Pop history doesn’t count.
and its already outdated, we need to add jolani in there
That’s the kicker, Leftists are correct far more often than liberals yet libs never put 2 and 2 together.
It’s late stage capitalism, bro, revolution is just around the corner, bro.
Repeat for 150 years.
Revolution has already come in many countries, and the US Empire is on its way out. Not sure what your point is, this is correct.
China is ready to take over as the lead capitalist empire.
China is neither Capitalist nor an Empire, so not sure what your point is.
How is China not capitalist? The government keeps it’s capitalist leashed, but they are the driving force are they not?
I’m also not sure how you’d not see them as an empire? It’s a big ole place with a lot of folk.
Only if you ignore all the obvious facts that make them wrong. For example two of the “allies” pictured here were never allies.
Seems to me it’s more saying that NATO’s stated goal for Libya was to “liberate” it, when in reality it was a disaster.
Either way, I’m more interested in continuing the conversations I tried to have with you regarding Marx’s Law of Value and your understanding of how the PRC functions.
Ok but Qaddafi wasn’t an ally of the USA.
Im not engaging in discussions that have zero to do with this thread in this thread.
Qadaffi kinda was between ~2003 and 2011. The CIA even captured and handed over enemies from all over the world, along with providing intelligence about dissidents within Libya.
You don’t have to respond in this thread, I just want you to give an example on the other thread that you say disproves Marx’s Law of Value, and ideally also elaborate on why you think workers in the PRC had it better 2-3 decades ago compared to today.
People are seriously acting like Bin Laden was bait and switched by the US. I somehow remember it differently…
…he was, though? We funded the Mujahideen to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then when the USSR collapsed we cut him loose to get all chummy with the Saudi government so we could get that cheap oil.
How was Libya, a member of the non-aligned movement, a US ally? They literally were part of a group that took neither side in the Cold War.
OBL was never an ally. The US gave money to the Pakistani ISI who gave money to fixers who gave money to OBL. There was no direct channel. He was never an ally and it is a weird assertion to make given the history.
The other two were US allies. Noriega was even friendly with Bush 41. This is just bad history.
As far as OBL goes, the US armed and trained his faction against the soviets during the soviet-afghan war.
And MI6 and the CIA giving info about mutual enemies doesn’t make them an ally.
Again the CIA gave money to the ISI who gave money to fixers who decided who got money. The US soldiers training them doesn’t make them an ally of the USA.
Ukraine was never an ally of the US either, by that metric.
No, because we actually have negotiated signed treaties with Ukraine. Are ypu confused as to what an ally is?
We signed treaties with a government that was overthrown, and “signing a treaty” does not make a nation an ally. You seem to be the one confused about what an ally is. There was no formal alliance, just informal support, the same kind given to the people who you claim don’t count because they were never allies.
Ukraine didn’t cease to exist when the administration was removed. Why would you think that would be the case? They still go by the same name and hold to all their relative treaties other than those involved in their invasion.
We have all sorts of agreements with Ukraine including ones that provide military responses which seems to be a fairly significant sign they are an ally. They are not any more now that the USA is aligned with Russia once again.
Why would you think the Ukrainian government isn’t an ally of the USA? Why would you think the treaties and agreements made by previous administrations aren’t still in place?
That’s not how Operation Cyclone worked. You can just read the wikipedia article, there’s several books on the subject, but honestly Blowback Season 4 is pretty good coverage. Episode 3 specifically deals with who at the CIA interfaced with the afghans and how.
It also includes the methods the US promoted the mujahedin as freedom fighters to the US before ultimately turning on them, which is what the meme is about.
From your link I have added emphasis to the part you seemed to have missed:
“ The distribution of the weaponry relied heavily on the Pakistani President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who had a personal relationship with Congressman Wilson. His Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups.[40] Along with funding from Saudi Arabia and the People’s Republic of China,[41] the ISI developed a complex infrastructure that was directly training 16,000 to 18,000 mujahideen fighters annually by early 1986 (and indirectly facilitating training for thousands of others by Afghans that had previously been recipients of ISI instruction).[42] They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan.[40] Pakistani President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq also directed the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to establish contact with Israel’s Mossad.[43] Intelligence offices were set up at both countries’ embassies in Washington, where the ISI, MI6, CIA and Mossad jointly ran the operation.[44] During this operation, Israel supplied Soviet-made weaponry (seized from Palestinian militants) to the Afghan mujahideen. Pakistan and Israel cooperated very closely during the entirety of the conflict and the Pakistani military which was engaging Soviet aircraft and providing the mujahideen with funds and weapons—received a generous amount of Israeli armaments and aid as a result.[44]___
So how didn’t it work like that? It really seems the ISI, who would best know the parties involved, did the heavy lifting.
The CIA using the ISI to transport some weapons and train soldiers isn’t “this ISI did everything therefore the Mujahedin weren’t supported by the US”, it’s “the ISI were a tool of the CIA”, the operation was run out of Washington. It had US media providing glowing coverage of the Mujahedin as they committed war crimes.
The ISI being the go between for almost everything does mean those groups the ISI paid are not allies of the USA. If anyone in the Mujahideen needed help we would not have provided it because we are not allies. If the ISI needed help we likely would help depending on the circumstances (we wont fight India for example).
You ever heard of operation cyclone before?
Yes and the ISI were the intermediary for almost everything. The wiki link they provided even explains this.
What did you think I was missing or am I supposed to think a handful of CIA guys made all the decisions vs taking input from the ISI would would know all of the players involved.
I know you are a communist and not a huge fan of the USA, but are you one of the people that actually believes America’s intelligence agencies were good at spy-craft? We weren’t.
Funny wojak faces but to clear up an apparent misconception here, Ukrainian weren’t fighting for abstract concepts like “freedom” and Democracy", they were fighting to stop Russian soldiers from killing their families, raping their children, and burning their homes to the ground.
I hope this helps!
I guess those values like Nazism and goals of cultural suppression of Russian-speaking people in the Donbas was all just to “protect their families”
Ukrainians were/are still fighting to defend themselves from an illegal invasion. But America sees and has always seen Ukraine as a proxy to weaken a geo-strategic rival. NATO was not realistically on the table as long as the conflict in the Donbas was ongoing (it would have immediately triggered art.5) to keep promising NATO instead of working on a more realistic path to peace has probably caused the death of 100000s of Ukrainians. And just as with many other imperial proxies in history, the proxy is left to deal with the fallout while the empire retreats to the metropol and prepares for the next conflict.
Really spot on except America isn’t exactly retreating, it’s just now under the leadership of an administration that would prefer to have Russia as an ally.
Instead of two imperialist powers fighting via proxy, they could just work together and strip smaller counties of their natural resources, side by side. Imperialism united.
Ukraine was always getting stripped of its resources and immiserated; the IMF loan required them to privatize and sell off their ports, power grids, factories, schools, etc for pennies.
I think you’ll find they were fighting other Ukrainians (if you can call the carpet bombing of civilians “fighting”) to maintain the US financed Poroshenko in power long before Russia went in, about eight years in fact.
long before Russia went in
There’s a problem with this, because Russia has had troops in Ukraine since early 2014, before Poroshenko’s government
The Sbovoda interim was also financed by the USA, with Victoria Nuland discussing on a leaked call who to name after they deposed Yanukovich.
Russia had troops in Crimea as requested by the Crimean government, which also seceded via referendum after said coup, as is its right under Ukrainian law. That proved to be the right move given that they didn’t have the astronomical number of casualties that Donbas had, with over 14 thousand dead before 2022, most of them civilians, and a huge number of injured civilians and destroyed infrastructure as per the Donbas documentary.
If America’s goal was to put Svoboda in power, they didn’t do a very good job of keeping them there, did they?
I have read the Nuland transcript. She’s talking about the existing leader of the opposition. Of course she said Yatsenyuk was the guy, he was the goddamn leader of the opposition. He was the one guy avalable with the best democratic mandate at the last election. Yanukovych even offered to make him prime minister at one point.
Russia put troops into Crimea before the referendum, and the referendum was run by the occupying army. Do you normally trust occupying armies to run referendums about whether or not they should get to keep the land they’re occupying?
Perhaps if Russia was so concerned about casualties in the Donbas, it should not have invaded and caused hundreds of thousands more casualties.
Russia put troops into Crimea before the referendum, and the referendum was run by the occupying army. Do you normally trust occupying armies to run referendums about whether or not they should get to keep the land they’re occupying?
97% in favour of Crimea joining Russia. Western polling was a solid 70%+. The new 2014 regime was legitimately divisive to the point that the majority ethnic Russian populations in Ukraine did not want to submit to them.
Lmao so the US did finance them, did appoint their best liked interim, did have congresspeople on the ground supporting the coup, did send in the money to arm the Nazis but just… quietly let democracy take its course once they spent all that time and money? America doesn’t give a fuck if Sbovoda remains as long as the shock therapy has happened already, by then they’ll take anyone who’ll toe the line.
I want to give y’all the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you think we’re stupid but sometimes I think there’s a more obvious answer.
Ukrainians already wanted to align with the EU. The US didn’t need to do a damn thing to influence that, a long history of Russian imperialism did it all for them
America spent fuck all on Ukraine in the entire history of its independence up until Euromaidan (pg 167). They simply did not spend “all that money”, because a single digit millions of dollars a year is a rounding error in the US budget. American spending on Ukraine in 2013 was 0.00024% of the federal budget.
America spent fuck all on Ukraine in the entire history of its independence up until Euromaidan
Oh fr? Let’s ask as-US-backed-as-US-backed-gets Kyiv Independent then: https://kyivindependent.com/how-us-foreign-aid-transformed-ukraine-through-the-years/
With the signing of a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and USAID in 1992, the agency started working alongside the Ukrainian government to build a competitive market economy, implement crucial social reforms […] In over 30 years of working in Ukraine, USAID has played a key role in transforming numerous sectors […] Dmytro Boyarchuk, the executive director of the Centre for Social and Economic Research (CASE Ukraine), said that Ukraine would not have been able to implement vital reforms without the support of international donors like USAID.
Obfuscate it as much as you want, pro-western Ukrainians themselves are telling everyone how maintaining a pro-western system depends on US funds.
The US didn’t need to do a damn thing
Nice deflection but the fact is that it did, often and extensively. If the US didn’t need to spend that money, then you shouldn’t worry, pretty soon they might not be. Let’s see how friendly that world is to the US and their chickenshit vassals in the UK et al, I yearn to see it. Most of all I yearn that y’all see it.
American spending on Ukraine in 2013
Good thing we’re talking about the money it spent on the coup and the aftermath, then.
So the fact that America funded through USAID 9 out of every 10 media outlets means they didn’t spend “anything” in Ukraine because… It spends way more fucking money than that everywhere else too?
Also, implying the US only spends the money in a country via direct government cash injection lmao. Most of the money the US spends is channelled through NGOs for propaganda and covert action. Why the fuck would they ever just give money away to a government before it’s thoroughly vassalized. What’s more: there’s ample evidence that US and UK propaganda specialists were employed by Subversive elements within Ukraine as well as extensive funding of NGOs and collaboration with psyop specialists.
In future resumes, they cited the Ukraine coup as well as the selling of the civil war as a “war against russian separatists” as an example of a successful psychological operation.
If Ukrainians already wanted to align with the EU, then why did they democratically elect Yanukovych, which the US subsequently couped in coordination with the Banderites?
You are backing the Russian invasion of Ukraine which they did to steal minerals and you are criticizing the US doing the same now that POTUS is a Russian asset?
umm actually history started on February 24th, 2022 ☝️🤓
It actually started on February 2014 and then abruptly stopped around May for 8 years
If it was simple mob extortion it would be reasonable. Zelensky originally agreed when he thought the deal would be to pay for American protection.
But Trump wants the money AND wants Ukraine to surrender. Trump is a stupid mob boss who doesn’t understand why “Pay me and I’ll let the rival gang burn your business.” isn’t going to be accepted.
Trump works for the rival gang though. He’s just demanding the minerals so the dipshits will blame the USA instead of Russia. Putin gets what he wants to steal and he looks good in the eyes of the pro-authoritarian class traitors in this thread.
To me, we are back to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, except this time it’s Ukraine instead of Poland and the US replace Nazi Germany…
its like the memoradum, where ukraine wasnt invited and like the sudentlands with ww2 nazi germany, the countries in question wasnt allowed at the table. and in recent history , israel was unilaterally given without hte palestines in attendance.
I am once again begging liberals to learn any history other than WW2. (And ideally actually learn about WW2 as well)
In my humble opinion, this is nothing like the Molotov-Ribbentrop. Molotov-Ribbentrop gets a lot of bad advertising due to cold war propaganda, but even western leaders in the west at the time like Churchill admitted that the Soviets had no other option (if you want evidence I have plenty of reference, feel free to ask :)
The Soviets spent the entire 30s warning of fascism and trying to build mutual defense agreements with France, England and Poland and they refused systematically, even when in 1939 the Soviets offered to send 1 million troops together with artillery, tanks and planes, to the Polish and French borders on exchange for a mutual defense agreement, but the French and English ambassadors received orders not to engage in actual negotiations and just to postpone the agreement, since they wanted the Nazis to invade the Soviet Union.
Either way even if you fundamentally disagree with what I’m saying, what was the alternative? Poland was going to get steamrolled by the Nazis with or without the soviets controlling the eastern part of it (as proven by the fact that soviets started invading some weeks after the Nazis). What’s more desirable, half of Poland having concentration camps, or the entirety of Poland having concentration camps?
All of this could have been prevented in my opinion if western countries agreed to engage the Nazis together with the Soviet union, as the soviets suggested as an alternative to the Munich agreements. So the lesson in my view is: to fight fascism, listen to socialists (who are the ones who actually defeated most Nazis in the eastern front)
since they wanted the Nazis to invade the Soviet Union.
I’d dispute that based on the fact that they declared war on Germany immediately when Hitler invaded Poland, dispite the fact that he was closing the buffer to the USSR. The capitalists’ real hope was that Hitler would be more of a bulwark, a guard dog who would be content suppressing communists within Germany’s own borders and being militarized and prepared in case the USSR tried to expand. Hitler was granted a lot of leeway in that hope, and it’s possible he misread that as either weakness or wanting him to attack the Soviets. But and the end of the day, if he wanted to fight the USSR, and Britain and France wanted him to fight the USSR, then he would’ve wound up fighting the USSR with little conflict with the other Allies, possibly even with their support. There’s a grain of truth to what you’re saying but imo it’s exaggerated and doesn’t fit with the facts/timeline.
I’d dispute that based on the fact that they declared war on Germany immediately when Hitler invaded Poland
They already had a mutual defense agreement with Poland, that’s why they intervened at that point. Additionally, they didn’t want Nazis to get too big because they were competing for resources and markets, as are all capitalist nations.
I find it very easy to believe that the very nations that invaded the Bolsheviks during the Russian civil war and supported the tsarists with no other reason than to attempt to destroy communism, would be happy to see Germany destroy the Soviet Union which, as a nation which had only began to industrialise in the late 1920s (compared to the extra century that Germany and England had had to industrialise), was very weak in military industrial capabilities.
In any case I understand that that’s just my opinion based on historical precedents, and there may be more nuance. However, I seem to share the same point of view of many western allies from the period:
“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be ” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door ” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
“One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course ” Neville Chamberlain, House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)
“We could not doubt that the Soviet Government, disillusioned by the hesitant negotiations with Britain and France, feared a lone struggle against Hitler’s mighty war machine. It seemed they had concluded, in the interests of survival, that an accord with Germany would at least postpone their day of reckoning ” Cordell Hull (U.S. Secretary of State), The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (Published 1948)
“It seemed to me that the Soviet leaders believed conflict with Nazi Germany was inescapable. But, lacking clear assurances of military partnership from England and France, they resolved that a ‘breathing spell’ was urgently needed. In that sense, the pact with Germany was a temporary expedient to keep the wolf from the door ” Joseph E. Davies (U.S. Ambassador to the USSR, 1937–1938), Mission to Moscow (1941)
Britain and France also had an alliance with Czechoslovakia, which they sacrificed. I’m very confused about where exactly Germany was supposed to invade from without a shared border, and the fact that Britain and France had an alliance with Poland in the first place contradicts the idea that they wanted Germany to invade the USSR.
Of course there was no love between them and the USSR and the capitalists were persuing material interests and all, but there was also a widespread hope/belief that WWI was “the war to end all wars.” “Peace in Europe” was a major political selling point.
I read all of your quotes and none of them seem to support your narrative over mine. My only point of disagreement with you is whether Britain and France wanted Germany to invade the Soviet Union, not about the Soviet assessment of the situation. It’s not even that big of a disagreement, I agree that they wanted to use Hitler but it’s clear they wanted to keep him on a leash and have him serve as a first line of defense, not offense. It shouldn’t be that hard to believe that the powers that be wanted to preserve the status quo and their position in it rather than throwing everything into chaos.
You make the point yourself that they didn’t want “The Nazis to get too big” but if they invaded the Soviets and emerged victorious, they’d be much bigger and pose a major threat to the other Allies (of course, there was also the possibility the USSR won, which would also pose a threat).
it’s clear they wanted to keep him [Hitler] on a leash and have him serve as a first line of defense
This is basically the thing I’m arguing. The Soviet Union was never an expansionist project in the military sense (they wanted to spread the revolution abroad, such as by assisting the Republicans in Spain and giving weapons to the Vietnamese in their anti-imperialist struggle), never projecting their military force outwards except as a response to serious provoking by third party foreign actors (such as in the case of the funding and arming in Afghanistan of radical theocratic militias by the US).
The fact that all of these western leaders talk of the USSR using the Molotov-Ribbentrop as an “odious but necessary defensive measure”, proves to me that they understood that the USSR wasn’t something they needed to be militarily defended of by a weaponized Germany acting as a buffer, hence that can’t be understood as Germany’s role in the situation in my opinion.
The Soviet Union was never an expansionist project in the military sense (they wanted to spread the revolution abroad, such as by assisting the Republicans in Spain and giving weapons to the Vietnamese in their anti-imperialist struggle)
I don’t think this distinction mattered to the capitalists. Whether we’re talking about military expansion or about supporting a socialist revolution in Germany, the capitalists didn’t want it to happen and Hitler could serve as bulwark against both. Had he kept to his own borders, Britain and France would’ve been perfectly satisfied with that result. Instead, because he invaded Poland, a country he, again, would have had to go through to reach the USSR, they declared war. I really want to emphasize and repeat this point: If Britain and France wanted Hitler to invade the USSR, what physical route was he supposed to take?
The fact that all of these western leaders talk of the USSR using the Molotov-Ribbentrop as an “odious but necessary defensive measure”, proves to me that they understood that the USSR wasn’t something they needed to be militarily defended of by a weaponized Germany acting as a buffer, hence that can’t be understood as Germany’s role in the situation in my opinion.
But, as you mentioned, the Soviets had supported the Republicans in Spain - even if they were too vulnerable to launch a military invasion of Germany, there was a possibility of them supporting a revolution in Germany, and Germany of course was politically unstable. The capitalists already had their “win” of the German communists being defeated and the class conflict appearing to stabilize, that’s plenty of villainous motivation on its own.
It seems completely implausible to me that they wanted Hitler to invade but then when he started moving his borders closer to making that possible, they suddenly flipped out and did a 180 and declared war instead.
Fait point. Let’s put it that way: Trump is trying to share Ukraine’s resources with Russia the way laymen understand Nazi Germany and USSR agreed to devide Poland’s territory in 1939.
Not to defend the flawed comparison with Trump’s treason, but that’s a very useless take on the M-R pact…
Stalin could have
- not promised the nazis to attack the Poles from the rear
- not attacked the Poles from the rear
- not murdered hundreds of thousands of Poles after high-fiving the nazis after having succesfully attacked the Poles from the rear
I think all of these alternatives would have been more desirable than, well, actively teaming up with the nazis
edit: list layout
Stalin could have not promised the nazis to attack the Poles from the rear not attacked the Poles from the rear
Again, please tell me what was the alternative to Soviet occupation in Eastern Poland, once Poland rejected a mutual defense agreement against Nazis with the Soviets.
murdered hundreds of thousands of Poles
I don’t think those numbers are honest, can you provide a source for that? I know about the Katyn massacre and about other events in which Nazi collaborators/Bourgeois Polish nationalists were killed (as well as some innocent civilians), but AFAIK the numbers don’t go that high
I think all of these alternatives would have been more desirable
Again, how is tens of thousands of deaths in occupied Poland (many of which were Nazi collaborators and bourgeois Polish nationalists) preferable to Nazi occupation? Or can you think of an alternative to either of these two options?
please tell me what was the alternative to Soviet occupation in Eastern Poland, once Poland rejected a mutual defense agreement against Nazis with the Soviets
There were several alternatives, actually. But most of them would start with Russia not attacking them in the rear after they moved their troops west to fight off the nazis
can you provide a source for that? I know about the Katyn massacre and about other events in which Nazi collaborators/Bourgeois Polish nationalists were killed (as well as some innocent civilians), but AFAIK the numbers don’t go that high
Yeah sure, here’s one that estimates between 250k and 1.5m (but which I believe also includes post-war)
But I presume that if you’re the type that already convinced themselves that all these murdered Poles “must have deserved it” in one way or another, then that number probably couldn’t be high enough anyway
There were several alternatives, actually
Great, please name one of them that doesn’t imply complete occupation of Poland by Nazis, I’ve asked you already several times to do so and you keep avoiding it. To me, a great alternative would have been the mutual defense agreement that the Soviet Union spent the entire 30s pursuing with England, France and Poland, which the latter countries repeatedly rejected. What’s your alternative?
Yeah sure, here’s one that estimates between 250k and 1.5m
That’s a book on migrations and deportations, not a book on casualties, it doesn’t seem to support a claim of “hundreds of thousands murdered” which you made in your previous comment, could you please elaborate?
already convinced themselves that all these murdered Poles
Again, you’re conflating murdered with deported.
“must have deserved it”
I explicitly mentioned in my previous comment that there were innocents caught in this process of class war and collectivisation of the economy in times of war, which I deeply lament. I just can’t envision an alternative reality where, after a decade of denying mutual defense agreements with the Soviets, there was a better alternative to Soviet occupation as opposed to Nazi occupation.
That’s a book on migrations and deportations, not a book on casualties, it doesn’t seem to support a claim of “hundreds of thousands murdered” which you made in your previous comment, could you please elaborate?
Again, you’re conflating murdered with deported
It most certainly includes direct casualty numbers as well, for Poland and many other conflicts.
Great, please name one of them that doesn’t imply complete occupation of Poland by Nazis
I just can’t envision an alternative reality
Well, I think that’s the main issue here. Siding with the nazis, attacking Poland in the rear when they were fighting the nazis, committing horrible crimes against the Polish population and POWs … You really, really cannot imagine not having to do even one of those
2·2 days agoI ask that you read Denna F. Flemmings, The Cold War and Its Origins 1917-1960, Vol I, at least the chapters regarding the build-up to and early days of WWII (Chapter 4-6/7).
Could you paraphrase the parts of the book that would be relevant?
It’s confusing to him because he is a street level member of the rival gang.
based man, I’m so sad about this… hope EU+UA will forge an even more powerful alliance!
Isn’t that exactly why Russia invaded to begin with, to steal minerals?
No, it was because they didn’t want a bordering nation to join a hostile military alliance.
And oil
If the war was purely economical it would have ended by now
If it was purely economical, it never would have started. The only things the last two years has accomplished has been to decimate the military readiness of Central Europe and inject fascist politics into the bloodstream of every country inundated with refugees.
Nobody is winning except the Hitlerites.
They were under the impression that it was a 3 day bonanza, not a long war because they sipped their own propaganda
Russia hasn’t seized those materials yet and they still believe they can so the war will continue.
Funny way of going about it, given that they’ve offered terns of peace every few months and negotiated a ceasefire that the US and its vassal the UK vetoed (hmmm 🤔) a few months in.
Quote:
When we returned from Istanbul, [then-British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘Do not sign anything with them at all; just go to war,’” Arakhamia said.
Rather than report [the real demands] to the public, however, the media in Europe and the U.S. focused on sensational statements that were not actually part of those negotiations.
Still looking for a valid source on your claim…
They’re quoting people who were at the negotiations and when Johnson vetoed the deal, evidence doesn’t become more true or less true because it’s posted by a billionaire’s paper.
But if you like, you can pretend NBC quoted an anonymous source who said it. Or just look for Arakhamia+“do not sign anything with them” and do your own cross referencing instead of sealioning.
And Im asking for you to establish that those quotes are legitimate by backing them with a source that theoretically does not have a built in bias.
Im asking for you to back your claim with a more valid source because People’s World is equivalent to Fox Cable News when it comes to built in bias
All sources have a built in bias jfc. If you think you’ve seen an unbiased source that just means you’re not self aware enough to recognize that it’s just your bias
Do you have a less biased source? People’s world will default to the anti-western position.
No, Russia stated that NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line, so their goal is to either prevent membership or demillitarize Ukraine entirely, and they have the means and will to continue until those objectives are met. That’s really all it boils down to.
Why do you think that what Russia says is true?
Russia said they didn’t poison Alexei Navalny in 2020, but they did. They said they didn’t kill Alexander Litvinenko, and they said they didn’t poison Sergei Skripal, but they did both of those things.
I trust Occam’s Razor, this is consistent with what has happened in the past regarding Russia/NATO relations since NATO’s formation as an anticommunist millitary alliance against the USSR, a history continued into the modern Russian Federation even after the adoption of Capitalism.
Occam’s razor would dictate that Russia is probably lying if they say they’re not interested in Ukrainian minerals, given that the Kremlin has lied about pretty much everything for a long time.
Putin is even saying he wants to sell minerals from Russian-occupied Ukraine to the US. Clearly he wants to profit from minerals in Ukraine.
Occam’s razor doesn’t mean “the view that contradicts my prejudices the least”. What you consider more or less likely has jack shit to do with it, learn what terms mean.
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? Why do you believe Putin when he says he wants to profit from minerals in Ukraine? Wouldn’t your belief in Russia as only lying mean that he actually doesn’t want to sell Ukrainian minerals to the US?
Russia can and does lie. It also tells the truth. Analyzing historical trends and motivations is important for figuring out what is actually going on, rather than just assuming the opposite of whatever Russia says. That’s not Occam’s Razor, that’s analytical nihilism.
I didn’t say Russian only lies. I said Russia “has lied about pretty much everything for a long time”. That is not the same thing.
assuming the opposite of whatever Russia says
I’m not just assuming the opposite of Russia’s statements. I’m drawing a best guess conclusion based on two premises:
- Russia has a history of lying about its true intentions and actions
- Russian oligarchs and elites would absolutely be interested in mineral wealth, given their history of megalomania
I think it’s likely that mineral wealth would have been part of the Kremlin’s motivation to invade. Along with general megalomania and irredentism.
Certainly you can see how the statement that “Russia has lied about pretty much everything” can be seen as “Russia always lies,” right?
Either way, I still don’t see why NATO expansionism would not be the primary factor, given that that has been a huge part of Russian geopolitics since back when they were still Socialist. Mineral access could be a secondary factor, but that doesn’t explain minerals being absent from the peace deal proposed by Russia near the beginning of the war, which instead focused on NATO.
It seems more likely that as Ukraine and the US rejected the Russian-proposed peace deals, Russia has seen that as an additional opportunity to recoup some of the cost of the war through going for minerals as a secondary objective.
The Kremlin says whatever suits its needs at any given moment. Of course, they’ve called NATO membership for Ukraine a “red line”—just as they’ve claimed Ukraine is full of Nazis, that the U.S. started the war, and that up is down and red is blue.
Putin lies with every word he speaks. His statements are meaningless; his actions tell the real story. He is an imperialist obsessed with his own legacy, determined to be remembered as one of Russia’s greatest leaders. His ambitions are monstrous, and he will stop at nothing—no matter the cost in human lives—to achieve them.
Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation’s existence.
Of course, Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation—just as imperialist ambitions in Russia predate Putin. But history isn’t an excuse for present-day aggression. Whatever the past, the reality now is that Putin’s actions are not about NATO; they are about control, power, and his own legacy. He isn’t reacting to a genuine security threat—he is manufacturing one to justify his war.
NATO expansion didn’t force Russia to invade Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t on the verge of joining NATO when the full-scale invasion began. Putin made that decision because he saw Ukraine slipping out of his influence, not because of any immediate NATO threat. His goal isn’t just to stop NATO expansion; it’s to erase Ukrainian sovereignty entirely.
Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just vibes? You can dislike or hate Putin while also believing that Occam’s Razor applies, and having a hostile Millitary Alliance on Russia’s doorstep could be seen as aggression by NATO towards Russia from the Russian POV.
I get what you’re saying about perspectives, and I’ll take your question in good faith. Let’s establish some key points:
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO’s founding principle is collective defense—Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, NATO has never preemptively attacked Russia or any other non-member state. The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11.
If NATO were aggressive, we’d have seen it by now. NATO expanded eastward because former Soviet-controlled states wanted to join. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia’s existence, why hasn’t it attacked Russia in the 30+ years since the USSR collapsed? There have been countless opportunities if that were NATO’s intent. But that’s not what has happened—because NATO isn’t an offensive force.
Putin’s “perspective” is selective and self-serving. Russia itself has attacked multiple neighboring countries—Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine (multiple times), and intervened in Syria. Meanwhile, NATO has not attacked Russian territory, nor has it forced any nation to join. So when Putin claims NATO is the aggressor, he is projecting—using the idea of a NATO “threat” as an excuse to justify his own expansionist wars.
Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine as a real country. He has said outright that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people” and that Ukraine exists only because of Soviet mistakes. That isn’t about NATO—it’s about his imperial ambitions. If NATO weren’t the excuse, he’d find another one.
So yes, Russia might perceive NATO as aggressive, but that doesn’t make it true. A defensive alliance accepting new members isn’t aggression. An authoritarian leader launching wars to reclaim “lost” lands is.
NATO is a millitary alliance of Imperialist states formed directly to exert pressure on the USSR, and now retains that hostile history with the current Russian Federation. It was led by Nazis including Adolf Heusinger and has performed hostile, anticommunist terrorist operations such as Operation Gladio in order to combat Communism and exert power to maintain Imperialism.
Your analysis of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is purely a character analysis of Putin, and not the legitimate material interests of all countries involved. This form of “Great Man Theory” is genuinely a myopic form of geopolitical analysis that rarely gets at the truth behind why events happen, and instead decides to look at history as though it’s the whims of a few individuals and not the billions of regular people.
This all starts when it becomes clear Ukraine has mineral rights that threaten Russia’s ability to lean on Western Europe to the extent it does/did.
The NATO claims are just cover. Even if they were true Russia has zero right to determine Ukraine’s future.
It’s weird to see “leftists” endorse imperialism while attempting to claim any kind of morality.
No, it started a lot longer ago than that. Russia has maintained for decades now that NATO encirclement is a red line, and that included Ukraine. I’m not “endorsing” anything here, but explaining the cause of the war. Russia is interested in having a buffer zone against NATO, the US is interested in profiteering in the form of loans and mineral rights, and the ruling class of Ukraine is interested in gettting rich off of sending young people to die in a preventable war.
This isn’t a war of “righteousness” or anything, it isn’t good vs evil, but 3 countries with different interests and the Ukrainian people ending up with by far the shortest end of the stick.
It’s hilarious that you accuse the US and Ukraine of wanting to get rich from mineral rights, but you won’t accuse Russia of the same thing. In reality there will be rich people in each of those countries wanting to profit from minerals.
Sure, there are likely people in Russia that want access to Ukrainian minerals, but that certainly doesn’t seem to be the primary cause of the invasion to begin with.
Maybe the primary cause was Putin’s megalomania, or indeed megalomania among quite a few Russian elites.
I don’t believe in “Great Man Theory” as a useful method of analysis of historical trends. Material conditions and political economic factors play a far greater role in historical events than the individual whims of leaders.
No, it started a lot longer ago than that
You can listen to Putin himself and he goes back pretty far in history.
I could, but I think it’s more important to look at what’s actually truly relevant. NATO/Russian relations don’t go nearly that far back.
Putin is the Czar. What’s on his matters most. Everything else is secondary or incidental.
Regardless of what Putin personally wants, Russia acts in the interests of its material conditions. Putin is a Nationalist, so his interests in maintaining a buffer from NATO generally align with the Russian public.
To be clear Im talking about many of the other leftists that are celebrating Putin’s invasions/actions not just you specifically
Russia has no right to demand a buffer zone and they have had plans to retake Ukraine for years as you always had that cadre of nutjobs going back to Zhirinovsky that would comment on the need to rebuild the empire. I believe they just found the right circumstances to take advantage of the situation.
No war is about morality and the only side with anything resembling a moral claim at all are those invaded.
I don’t see what discussing the morality of the invasion will practically solve, nor the insistence on Russia not actually caring about NATO and instead wanting minerals. The reason it’s important to accurately identify the cause of war is so that we can find a way to end it with the least harm possible, as it stands right now Ukraine is getting the rug pulled from under them and will be subject to US loans and Russian victory, the worst outcome for them, period.
Im not saying Russia doesn’t care about NATO. I have stated that it does not matter what Russia’s position is as they have no right to determine what Ukraine does despite the intense entitlement throughout Russia
You said it was a cover in order to grab minerals in Ukraine. I disagree, and that fundamentally changes how we analyze how to end the war.
It’s weird to see “leftists” endorse imperialism
Leftist: “Damn, this war is killing so many people and wasting so many natural resources. Everything in the region is getting worse the longer it drags on. It needs to stop.”
Radical Centrist: “You only want to stop the war because you love Hitler.”
Leftist: “Also, Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza.”
Radical Centrist: “More antisemitism! You’re only proving my point.”
Leftist: “War is Bad.”
Radical Centrist: “Just what a Fascist would say.”
Your reply is a straw man.
Russia is a huge country has plenty of minerals and a low population. Trading people for more minerals isn’t exactly in Russia’s interest.
These minerals threaten the Russian economy and their soft power over other European nations. If Germany can get their fuel supply from Ukraine rather than Russia that weakens Russia
One problem with this theory is that Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine trading with Europe until the coup in 2014 happened.
They were fine with Ukraine trading with other European nations but weren’t ok with them not wanting to be under Russian control.
Remember Ukraine traded in nukes to get protection from Russian imperialism.
They weren’t under Russian control. What actually happened was that the west was not ok with Ukraine being independent and instigated a coup there. Incredible how trolls now twist this to be backwards.
What actually happened was that the west was not ok with Ukraine being independent and instigated a coup there.
By independent, you mean controlled by the same oligarchic system as the Russian federation?
While you are correct that Russia really didn’t need the minerals in Ukraine, they did want to maintain relations with the oligarchs that controlled the majority of Ukraine wealth. They especially wanted to maintain relations with the oligarchs like Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, and Firtash. Who were responsible for mediating Russian gas sales to Ukraine.
Of course the US has their fingers in geopolitics around the globe, but giving them credit for the revolution in 2014 is a bit generous imo. I mean, when is the last time America did anything at this scale with any kind of competency?
In 2008, the combined wealth of Ukraine’s 50 richest oligarchs was equal to 85% of Ukraine’s GDP.[3] In November 2013, this number was 45% (of GDP).[
In reality this is the reason for the revolution. It’s also the same reason why America’s billionaire president is now supporting Russia. The ultra wealthy have long craved the control Russia’s oligarchy has over the state.
By independent, you mean controlled by the same oligarchic system as the Russian federation?
As opposed to the oligarchic system in the west?
While you are correct that Russia really didn’t need the minerals in Ukraine, they did want to maintain relations with the oligarchs that controlled the majority of Ukraine wealth. They especially wanted to maintain relations with the oligarchs like Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, and Firtash. Who were responsible for mediating Russian gas sales to Ukraine.
Russia wanting to maintain economic relations with Ukraine isn’t the conspiracy theory you seem to think it is.
Of course the US has their fingers in geopolitics around the globe, but giving them credit for the revolution in 2014 is a bit generous imo. I mean, when is the last time America did anything at this scale with any kind of competency?
The credit goes to the US and it’s pretty well documented at this point https://kitklarenberg.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-coup-how-cia-front-laid
In reality this is the reason for the revolution. It’s also the same reason why America’s billionaire president is now supporting Russia. The ultra wealthy have long craved the control Russia’s oligarchy has over the state.
In reality, the reason for the coup is that certain oligarchs in Ukraine decided to throw their lot with the US. The US will now get a return on their investment when they take over whatever resources left in Ukraine that Russia doesn’t take.
One of the reasons, others include vengenance over Ukrainians throwing out his puppet from the government, insane conspiracy theories about Lenin creating the Ukrainian nation, etc.
Unlikely. There are and where good economic and political reasons for the war.
The blossoming democracy, freedom and wealth in Ukraine are dangerous to the stability of Russia. They show what could have been.
The annexation of crimes did bring ports to further Russia’s imperial ambition. The agricultural land is of high quality and will secure Russia’s role as a resource exporter after the phase out of fossils. You also need to keep in mind that siberia’s agricultural output is severely at risk from climate change. Ukraine had impressive heavy industry. They took transit tolls for Russian gas which could be saved.
lmfao did you just say Ukraine was blossoming democracy 🤣
real democracy is when all power is concentrated in one person who rules for 20+ years at a time and criticizing him is highly correlated with falling out of a window. There is absolutely no possible nuance.
I believe this is what’s called whataboutism in liberal parlance
what is relevant is the difference exists, and is a trend that can easily be extrapolated into “blossoming democracy”, especially in the minds of the russian people.
What is relevant is that you made a non sequitur here. However, the actual difference that exists is that Putin actually won elections and has popular support in Russia. Meanwhile, western puppet in Ukraine cancelled elections for obvious reasons. Try to put a bit more work into your trolling to make it less obvious.
Your unwillingness to understand does not a non sequitur make.
Almost as if a preventable policy shift happened.
Has it? Ukraine is stuck with a loan because Biden did not give them the weapons but loaned them. If this was not the plan all along, why would they be loans?
Have they? As far as i am aware, the Lend-Lease act of 2022 hasnt been used once. The weapons weren’t loaned, but the 4.4 Billion dollars for buying weapons were. Thats a fraction of the 176 billion the US spent in this war.
That 500B debt is number pulled of Trumps Ass.
you misspelled predictable there
That would be a compelling argument (unpredictable policy shift) if it hadn’t been predicted by socialists all over the world when the war started
And as if half those pictured were never allies. For pete’s sake Libya was in the non aligned movement from 1964 on.
