this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
414 points (90.4% liked)
World News
32317 readers
1183 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At a 2008 summit, NATO stated that it would attempt to expand to include Georgia and Ukraine, despite Russia having stated that NATO membership for those countries was a red line for them. Georgia was immediately invaded by Russia in response. Imo this makes it clear that NATO membership for either of those countries was so unacceptable that Russia would rather invade.
If we assume that Russia (and Putin in particular) is acting violently and irrationally like a wild animal, why did NATO continue to agitate Russia when the only possible outcome would be violence? Surely a neutral or even Russia-aligned Ukraine would be preferable to a war-torn Ukraine? This is proof that the US and NATO don't care about the average person actually living in Ukraine, and indeed don't care about the Ukrainian state beyond it being a useful (and profitable) proxy against a geo-political rival.
To be clear, I'm not excusing Russia here, but geo-politics aren't about what's "fair" or "right", and if they were, the US would be a global pariah.
edit: sorry this is really long.
I think it's clear that NATO support for Ukraine is not altruistic (it is simply not how international politics functions) but the Ukrainian people as such certainly do, in my eyes, have an ethical right to self-defence. If I were Ukrainian, I would want NATO weapons because they give me a better chance of fighting off the invader. After all, it's not like the 2022 invasion was the first bit of tension between Ukraine and Russia post-independence, it makes sense to try and form a counterbalancing alliance with the 'far' imperial power to counter the 'close' one, it's a common thing to do. e.g., Mali allying with Russia to counter French influence, Armenia allying with Russia to counter Turkish-Azeri aggression, and so on and so forth.
I think what I find disagreeble about peoples' attitudes on here is their attitude towards the Ukrainian people's struggle. Yes, ok, I also hate the far-right elements in the Ukrainian military and don't care at all that they got smashed in Mariupol, but I certainly do care about the RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION which is being denied to so many Ukrainians (there is clear evidence that outside of Crimea even Russian-speaking Ukrainians almost entirely oppose the invasion). Likewise
Yes, NATO does not care about Ukrainians, but an invasion was not the 'logical' response from Russia, and as per existing evidence was based on a complete misunderstanding of the realities on the ground in Ukraine from the Russian leadership which has become increasingly isolated and personalist (around Putin) in the past two decades but especially since COVID. There were a vast number of less escalatory and mutually destructive potential paths for the Russian leadership to have taken. After all, this war has gone terribly for Russia compared to their initial aims. Putin claimed (wrongly) that Ukrainian national identity was a Bolshevik creation with no real support, yet now a fervent Ukrainian national identity exists now more than ever before in both the east and west of the country. Putin thought Russian-speaking Ukrainians would rally to his side, yet he has pushed them into the arms of the Ukrainian state more than ever before. Putin was afraid of Ukraine becoming aligned with NATO, yet now he has pushed them into the arms of the west completely and permanently. The invasion has killed tens of thousands of young Russian men, has caused considerable capital flight, large-scale brain drain, and empowered Prigozhin and other mercenary/sub-state militias (including Kadyrovites and such) to the point where a mercenary group was within a few hours of marching on Moscow(!) before deciding it wasn't worth the effort (Prigozhin is still strong enough to be allowed to potter about diplomatic meetings, if you need any indication of the dire state of the Russian state). Putin claims to be conducting de-Nazification yet his policies since 2014 have uniformly strengthened the position of the far-right within Ukrainian state + society.
Plus the conduct of the Russian Army and its affiliated elements has been extremely inhumane. I would not say there is evidence of genocide, no (though the large-scale kidnapping of Ukrainian children and their Russification, if true on a systemic scale, would be an act of genocide-I do not think there is enough evidence to say either way yet), but there is evidence of systematic and systemic abuses on a VASTLY larger scale than we have seen from the Ukrainians. It is a catastrophe of Russia's own making.
To get back on topic (sorry), I do not see how you can admonish Ukrainians for supporting any means for their national self-defence. They have every right to resist the invasion and to not want part of their homeland (territory and 'land' is important in all national identities/mythologies), no? There is no contradiction between supporting this right to self-defence and self-determination and hating the Nazi groups which, unfortunately, have an outsized power within the Ukrainian military (but do not completely control the state-Zelensky is Jewish and a Russian-speaker!). Yes, Ukrainian national mythology has its share of far-right and general awful elements to it, but unfortunately that's common in a lot of Eastern Europe and as per studies Nazism and antisemitism do not have more support in Ukraine than in Russia or the rest of Eastern Europe. There has been plenty of polling/surveying on these topics in Ukraine. There is more so just a lack of understanding as to what the Banderites actually did in WW2, not real support for their actions/Nazi collaboration. That's bad but not what some are saying on here.
To clarify my stance, I want the war to end as soon as possible so that all the people on the ground can stop killing each other for no reason. I also agree that Russia invading was, in addition to being wrong because war is bad, incredibly stupid and needlessly damaging to their own position (I was one of the people saying they wouldn't launch an invasion because it seemed like it would backfire). We'll see how the economic and geo-political damage ends up shaking out in a decade or so, I imagine. And of course it's understandable for Ukrainians to take up arms to defend their land, though it will likely only prolong the suffering, especially if we agree that life on the ground under the Ukrainian state would be little better than living under the Russian one. I also recognize that Putin claiming the war was necessary for de-nazification etc was the equivalent of pretending to care about human rights to sell the war to the populace; yes there are nazis and the far right is a huge problem in Ukraine, but that isn't something Russia actually cares about (beyond a potential insurgency, anyway).
However, the point of my comment was not to condemn Ukraine. Instead, it was to point out that the US is not interested in helping Ukrainians (something we clearly agree on), and that in fact they are more than willing to sacrifice them in a conflict to achieve their own ends, namely isolating/weakening Russia and opening up Ukraine to even more voracious imperial extraction.
You can't write two paragraphs excusing Russia and then say "I'm not excusing Russia btw."
No country should be able to force 'my way or a military invasion' ultimatum on another non hostile sovereign state. If a government interprets a neighboring country joining a purely defensive treaty out of their own volition (no, Ukraine is not secretly run by the CIA after Maidan) as a hostile act, that only means the nationalism levels went out if control.
I'm normally very critical of the US, but neither them nor NATO can be blamed for this conflict.
For the first 40 years of NATO's existence it sought to offensively undermine democracy and reinforce the states of NATO aligned countries in Europe through terrorism.
They then rather offensively carpet bombed Yugoslavia killing and wounding thousands of civilians ( many of whom were from Kosovo the people they purportedly wanted to help), 3 foreign diplomats by bombing a foreign embassy not in anyway involved in a conflict and completely destroying the infrastructure of Serbia.
They then offensively invaded Afghanistan where they destabilized the country, toppled the government and then put pedophile psychos in charge because they were the ones willing to work with us, killed nearly 100,000 civilians, and then ended up putting the original government back in charge 20 years later.
Finally they offensively took the most prosperous country in Africa, a country with universal college, healthcare, jobs programs, and housing, a desert country that had a 200 year supply of water and bombed the fuck out of it, destroying the water supply, plundering the gold, supporting the precursors to ISIS, and turned the country into a place with fucking slave auctions.
But yeah NATO is a defensive alliance.
: |
For the past several decades NATO has utterly destroyed various countries around the world, while maintaining ruthless tradewars against the peoples of Cuba, Iran and Venezuela, as well as a brutal colonial regime across much of West Africa. NATO won't stop at invading your country either. They'll maintain occupations in Syria and blockades of Afghanistan from now until the end of time.
NATO would rather see the people of Niger and Mali starve to death rather than pay market rates for their resources.
NATO will crow that countries in South America are too defiant, why, they didn't even try and coup the brazilian elections last year!
NATO is, simply put, a defensive alliance of the world's preeminent warmongerers.
Hosting NATO troops is the epitome of hostility.
Unfortunately for you some countries can actually resist. And resist they shall.
Non-hostility is when you do ethnic cleansing against the ethnicity the neighboring country is named after, engage in a war right by the borders to support that ethnic ckeansing, violate your treaties to end that war, and cozy up your coup government to the military organization intended to encircle that country, an org that regularly engages in aggression.