Geopolitics

[Mciahel Goodman]

If you're looking at things through constructivism then the events you cite are also the result of personal interactions amongst those who initiated them, both Putin and western leaders. Its not making a moral call on who is right or wrong, its simply distilling macro-level events down to interactions among very small groups of elites who make them.

Another example would be the 2003 decision to invade Iraq, which was largely made off of very narrow groupthink among a small group of senior Dubya advisors, where no one wanted to be the odd man out by promoting an alternate view, therefore everyone was incentivized to agree with Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's postions. You can combine constructivism with structural realism to create an even broader framework.

I think it is the distilling of the macro into the absolutely micro which seems to simplify (except in "meta" conversations like these where you can clarify exactly what is meant).

I agree with the part in bold. A combination of the two which explores the macro in structural realist terms and then reframes it according to the distillation of said macro forces within the individual actor makes most sense. That means we retain the historical nuances and impersonal aspect of long-term state behavior whilst also adding the agentative aspect which a purely structural reading tends to lack (that has always been the critique of structuralism in all its forms).

The more I think about it, the more it becomes clear that the micro/macro distinction is intrinsically dialectical (irreducibly dialectic). The macro is the sum total of all instances of "micro" whereas "micro", conceived as the distillation of the macro into that ruling class of elites which control the key state structures (its "repressive apparatuses") is akin to a kind of symbolic macro understood in (tautologically) micro (embodied/individualized) form. From which you get the colloquial idea of the head of state as being the symbol of the state itself (like in feudal times when the kingdom and king were irreducible). It's this top-down (by virtue of bottom-up) concept which explains the dialectic and this holds for dictatorships as well as democracies (how long until the bottom forces the top, which is Putin, into changing course; or, how long do western governments have, in terms of inflation and cost of living crises, worsened by Russia's invasion, before the bottom no longer buys into the idea of undergoing hardship for the sake of a foreign country). Also, I agree that constructivism works better for autocracies (though still think a blend of structuralism/constructivism is best) because the institutional value of those countries is much weaker (the president of the US is limited in ways that an absolute dictator is not).

Spoiler: Top/Bottom

btw, the power of the state is its bottom. The bottom have less (sometimes, no) means of direct influence via individual action, but it is only because of the bottom that the top possess said direct means in individualized form. The top that would abstract itself from the bottom will not remain "top" for long. In abstraction there is a divestment of labour, but the validation of the top exists only insofar as it possess utility (otherwise the question becomes "what need have we of them?"). So, historically speaking, collective action has been undermined by those who wish to keep the bottom weak (or atomized). Such moves are self-harm or moving dirt under the carpet. The top, must, over time, be toppled and it must occur via "class mobility" or there is no carpet large enough to conceal the dirt which accrues as a consequence (realpolitik). You can only stage the "symbolic toppling" so many times before a people understand that the symbol is removed from practicality (that, from the ground, all, at the top, has melted into air [this is what "out of touch" means]). Elections in a two-party system are like symbolic topplings: this one the bad guy now, that one the enemy next. In an autocracy, the analogue might be the perceived or real improvement of conditions by proxy (like Putin's control over the oligarchs or his criminalization of key security figures as a way of 1) centralizing state control, 2) symbolically recognizing state culpability but in a "not-me" manner of acting). Such falls apart over time. A revolution is that kind of collective action which occurs primarily due to the worsening of the bottom's day-to-day living conditions (their purchasing power or their lives, literally, as in the prospect of a self-suicide war). Combine the two (both Russia and the West are doing just that) and you have revolutionary conditions.

Nor should it be a surprise that collective revolutions ultimately lead to a reinstatement of a top-down mechanism (the top cannot outweigh the bottom, either in power or in numerical value, which amounts to the same thing). Too many chefs - leads to many chefs being culled and many more being demoted to the role of cook. Anything which sparks collective action (any event) is without fail sabotaged by the top (sabotage may not be successful, initially, but the attempt always occurs). The appropriation of the collective cause by some individual or group of such which wishes to mislead it, misdirect its target away from the actual top and push it to some harmless peripheral position (BLM - from taking control of the streets to kneeling before sporting events, an ironic 360 insofar as the act of kneeling was meant to protest and trigger something more tangible than said individual act of kneeling). But, and this is important, key concessions do emerge even as the social order is reinstated (it is reinstated upon the understanding that concessions have been made, in fact). This is the history of all social movements (from women's liberation to the civil rights era). The mistake is to assume that such struggles have an end point - they don't. Insofar as the top-bottom dichotomy remains in place, there will always be occasional rebellions by the bottom against the top; collective attempts to recalibrate an ailing social order via the extraction of concessions.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

if you think of the political spectrum as a circle, not a line, it makes way more sense.

Isn't it typically modeled as spherical (so that left/right converge in places but there remain key distinctions: Stalin was authoritarian as was Hitler, but the former was an authoritarian within a socialist state whilst the latter was a nationalist within a capitalist state)? There are areas of overlap, anyway. The libertarians overlap with anarchists and even liberals in certain respects, but due to different ideological considerations (libertarians, on the face of it, do not think government should involve itself in the life of the citizen; anarchists do not recognize the state as legitimate; but the first wants to pursue a "conservative/capitalist" ideology whilst the second works toward the ideal of collective/direct democratization). Liberals called for the legalization of drugs because they viewed it as the criminalization of addiction; libertarians would agree that drugs should be legal (see Ron Paul around 2008), but for very different reasons. The circle is a degenerate version of the sphere, so it isn't far off, but the sphere makes more sense because it is genuine.

 

[frostbite]

Isn't it typically modeled as spherical (so that left/right converge in places but there remain key distinctions: Stalin was authoritarian as was Hitler, but the former was an authoritarian within a socialist state whilst the latter was a nationalist within a capitalist state)? There are areas of overlap, anyway. The libertarians overlap with anarchists and even liberals in certain respects, but due to different ideological considerations (libertarians, on the face of it, do not think government should involve itself in the life of the citizen; anarchists do not recognize the state as legitimate; but the first wants to pursue a "conservative/capitalist" ideology whilst the second works toward the ideal of collective/direct democratization). Liberals called for the legalization of drugs because they viewed it as the criminalization of addiction; libertarians would agree that drugs should be legal (see Ron Paul around 2008), but for very different reasons. The circle is a degenerate version of the sphere, so it isn't far off, but the sphere makes more sense because it is genuine.

But was the socialist State of Stalin any different from the nazi Germany? In any real sense? In both of them the top officers had a good life with paid vacations and everything they needed or desired. It is not that Stalin's friends were poor or didn't have to eat, they all had much more than the average person back then. I'd say that for common people, the average German in 1935 lived in a "socialist state" more than the average Russian in 1935.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

But was the socialist State of Stalin any different from the nazi Germany? In any real sense? In both of them the top officers had a good life with paid vacations and everything the needed or desired. It is not that Stalin's friends were poor or didn't have to eat, they all had much more than the average person back then. I'd say that for common people, the average German in 1935 lived in a "socialist state" more than the average Russian in 1935.

For all its ills, the USSR was more progressive than some of its other authoritarian counterparts (in terms of women's rights and racial politics, at least insofar as they practiced these politics abroad). The argument made by scholars (marxist scholars) is that the USSR was never really a socialist state, so you might be right that the average German in 1935 had more of a socialist existence than the average Russian.

 

[MadMike]

In Greece, it is a surprise that the far left supports Putin the fascist and nationalist! For many years now, people were saying that the far left and the far right are practically the same thing. I couldn't believe it, but now it seems more and more reasonable. Putin has nothing to do with a socialist ideology, so why does the left support him?

No surprise at all. How are you even shocked by this? Do you remotely follow Greek politics?

Left-wing parties in Greece from KKE tο Syriza (and Synaspismos before that) have always indulged in Russophilia and even more so, anti-Westernism. The latter has actually been a bigger part of their ideology than Socialism for a very long tıme now. It stems from unhealed wounds dating back to the Civil War and the support of the West (Britain in particular) towards the democratic government.

KKE was just a mouthpiece of the Kremlin for years. But even Syriza was formed during the events of NATO bombings in Kosovo by the anti-NATO sentiment of the time. They have been vocal supporters of Maduro and Hugo Chavez before him, as well as Fidel Castro in Cuba. Tsipras was invited to Castro's funeral and was met by Xi Jinping (and called "a great friend of China") even after he lost his Premiership.

Far left parties have supported the most regressive and oppressive regimes, so long as they were opposed to the Evil Empire of America and its sidekick (the EU). It doesn't matter that the countries they support have even worse human rights records and are not socialist in any meaningful way. They are anti-West and it's what matters the most them. Decades of bitterness have festered into irrational hatred of anything Western.

 

[frostbite]

For all its ills, the USSR was more progressive than some of its other authoritarian counterparts (in terms of women's rights and racial politics, at least insofar as they practiced these politics abroad). The argument made by scholars (marxist scholars) is that the USSR was never really a socialist state, so you might be right that the average German in 1935 had more of a socialist existence than the average Russian.

Progressive in words, not in any real sense. For example, the women had the right to vote... but only in theory. In practice, nobody had the right to vote! So, yes, the women had the same rights as men, because no one had any rights. In my opinion, this is not "more progressive".

Anyway, this Putin regime is not socialist, not even in name. He did retain all the suppression mechanisms of the USSR. The "left", or "progressives", should really hate this regime, even without the imperialistic invasion of Ukraine. It is really unsettling to see so many in the "left" trying to justify this war.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Anyway, this Putin regime is not socialist, not even in name. He did retain all the suppression mechanisms of the USSR. The "left", or "progressives", should really hate this regime, even without the imperialistic invasion of Ukraine. It is really unsettling to see so many in the "left" trying to justify this war.

I really haven't seen anyone on the left (maybe a few embittered types aside) try to justify the invasion. Has anyone notable actually said Putin was/is right to invade Ukraine? Putin's nationalism runs contrary to the basic principles of left-wing politics.

 

[berbatrick]

But was the socialist State of Stalin any different from the nazi Germany? In any real sense? In both of them the top officers had a good life with paid vacations and everything they needed or desired. It is not that Stalin's friends were poor or didn't have to eat, they all had much more than the average person back then. I'd say that for common people, the average German in 1935 lived in a "socialist state" more than the average Russian in 1935.

There's no one definition of socialism, but this estimate of income concentration in Russia suggests a different picture:

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

There's no one definition of socialism, but this estimate of income concentration in Russia suggests a different picture:

If accurate, that is quite telling (the Friedman shock doctrine hitting in the 90s).

 

[Rams]

Spot the contradiction

A country wanting to join doesn’t mean that the members of the organization would permit as has been proven that Ukraine wants the EU to fast track them as a member.

 

[frostbite]

There's no one definition of socialism, but this estimate of income concentration in Russia suggests a different picture:

Statistics on USSR economy are meaningless, basically lies. The 10% of Russians did not own anything themselves, because their multiple homes, their ordelies (servants), their cars, their food, everything, all belonged to the State and was being paid by the State. In practice, they lived quite comfortably while a lot of the population starved. In 1935 millions of people died from starvation in Ukraine, but the above diagram says only 25% of the income belonged to the rich, so the 75% belonged to the poor and everything was better, right?

 

[frostbite]

I really haven't seen anyone on the left (maybe a few embittered types aside) try to justify the invasion. Has anyone notable actually said Putin was/is right to invade Ukraine? Putin's nationalism runs contrary to the basic principles of left-wing politics.

Yes, some people of the left in Greece say that Putin was right because he wanted to destroy the Azof battalion and the Nazis in Ukraine, and basically the problem was caused by NATO who wanted the Ukrainians to join EU and NATO. They don't accept that there is "Putin nationalism", they say he is defending.

Of course, there are rumors that Russian billionaires were paying some of these people, so I have no idea what they actually believe. For example:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/p...ch-charged-violating-crimea-related-sanctions

"HANICK also worked for Malofeyev on a project to establish and run a Greek television network and on efforts to acquire a Bulgarian television network. At Malofeyev’s direction, Hanick traveled to Greece and to Bulgaria on multiple occasions in 2015 and 2016 to work on these initiatives, and reported directly back to Malofeyev on his work. For instance, in November 2015, HANICK wrote to Malofeyev that the Greek television network would be an “opportunity to detail Russia’s point of view on Greek TV.” In connection with Malofeyev’s efforts to acquire the Bulgarian television network, HANICK took steps to conceal Malofeyev’s role in the acquisition by arranging to travel to Bulgaria with another person identified by a Greek associate of Malofeyev, so that it would appear the buyer was a Greek national rather than Malofeyev."

 

[Pintu]

”The Bundeswehr air fleet has been based on Tornado fighter jets for decades – now a replacement is to come. Berlin plans to equip the troops with aircraft from the US armaments company Lockheed Martin.”

This goes comes 2 weeks after announcement that Germany will invest massively in armement. And 2 days after the EU Versailles summit that also promised that EU will collectively increase its defense capabilities.

Russia’s invasion is certainly going to end up costing them their supposed military superiority over EU countries. So next time Trump wants to dismantle NATO, it won’t be putting European safety at risk.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/us-senate-approves-spending-bill-billions-israel

A $1.5 trillion spending bill passed this week by both the US House and Senate, and soon to be signed by President Joe Biden, is raising concern among some for its inclusion of $1 billion additional aid to Israel for its Iron Dome defence system.
"My main concern is that it’s an alarming example of a blank cheque to Israel," Raed Jarrar, advocacy director at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), told The New Arab. "It’s a huge omnibus. They know it will pass without opposition."
The 2,741-page bipartisan-backed legislation, passed in the House 361-69 on national security and 260-171 on domestic programs and in the Senate 68-31, will fund the federal government through the end of September of this year.

The omnibus, referring to the additional provisions not related to the heart of the legislation (for which many would not necessarily otherwise vote) includes a range of other provisions, such as $13.6 billion in aid for Ukraine and neighbouring eastern European countries, as well as an additional $1 billion in aid for Israel’s Iron Dome defence system – adding to its already $3.8 billion in annual aid from the US.
The provision for Israel was a response to the loss of Dome batteries from last spring’s Gaza conflict.

In September, the additional $1 billion was voted down by several progressive Democrats. The provision has been debated for months, and finally made it into this week’s spending bill.
The bill also includes Israel Relations Normalization Act, which builds upon the Abraham Accords, the normalisation agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, negotiated under the Donald Trump’s administration in 2020 by the former president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

At the time, the deal had strong opposition in the Democratic party, which has gradually lessened with time.

Following the House passage of the bill, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer issued a statement from his office expressing his pride in the inclusion of the Iron Dome funding as well as the Abraham Accords.

"I was proud to support robust funding to replenish and enhance Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence system in the omnibus passed by the House tonight," a 9 March statement from his office said.
"Moreover, it is essential that Israel not only maintain a qualitative military edge overall but that we help Israelis develop and deploy the next generation of missile defence to cover all of its airspace and that Iron Dome can provide that coverage even sooner," the statement added.
His statement went on to praise the Abraham Accords, saying: "The Abraham Accords were a testament to the mutual benefits of normalization and how building stronger ties between Arab states and Israel will help make a peaceful, two-state solution more attainable for Israelis and Palestinians."

Josh Ruebner, director of government relations at the Institute for Middle East Understanding, told TNA: "It is legislative malpractice for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to slip all of these items, which deepen US complicity with Israel's regime of settler-colonialism, apartheid, and military occupation, into a must-pass budget bill, especially when this bill also contained much-needed humanitarian assistance to the Ukrainian people as they resist a brutal attack by Putin.
"Basically, Hoyer put Members of Congress in an unconscionable situation where they had to vote both to support the Ukrainian people while simultaneously providing Israel weapons to harm and kill Palestinians," he said.
"The same righteous impulse we're seeing today in the United States to support the Ukrainian people's struggle against oppression should be the same animating impulse we have toward the Palestinian people as they resist Israeli oppression. Instead, Hoyer cynically and cruelly pitted them against each other by the way in which he set up this vote," Ruebner added.

Similarly, David Frank, a professor of rhetoric at University of Oregon, expressed his disappointment in the current legislative voting system with its omnibus packages, particularly with the Iron Dome.
He sees this as money that would be better spent on Palestinian infrastructure and schools, and worries that increased military aid to Israel will only encourage further military build-up in the region.
"The system of the US expenditure of funds is broken," he tells TNA. "Progressive members of Congress are blackmailed into supporting measures they don’t support. I haven’t seen a proposal that would have trade-offs. That’s the great tragedy of politics."

I know they do it intentionally (like the multi trillion dollar package given to business during Covid) but they should itemize objects of expenditure, where appropriate, instead of the all or nothing approach currently used. Funding Israel separately would be a much harder sell than tying it in with the Ukrainian funding. They would figure out a way of gaslighting people into thinking there was no contradiction, but you'd at least have a voting record to judge representatives on an individual and party basis.

 

[Mastadon]

Spot the contradiction

Explaining the reasons why something happened does not equal justifying it.

 

[VorZakone]

No brainer for Finland?

 

[Raoul]

No brainer for Finland?

It seems Putin's adventure in Ukraine to thwart the threat of NATO has only galvanized more countries to join.

 

[Cheimoon]

It seems Putin's adventure in Ukraine to thwart the threat of NATO has only galvanized more countries to join.

This is basically exactly what everyone keeps saying: the same reason why it might be a bad idea to join NATO for countries close to Russia (Russia might feel threatened and act out) also leads to the perfect reasonto do join NATO (Russia is the kind of country that might act out for whatever reason and that you need to defend yourself against).

 

[Raoul]

This is basically exactly what everyone keeps saying: the same reason why it might be a bad idea to join NATO for countries close to Russia (Russia might feel threatened and act out) also leads to the perfect reasonto do join NATO (Russia is the kind of country that might act out for whatever reason and that you need to defend yourself against).

The irony of it all being that the need for NATO will diminish significantly once Russia goes democratic.

 

[Cheimoon]

The irony of it all being that the need for NATO will diminish significantly once Russia goes democratic.

Yeah, that's more or less what I argued earlier somewhere. Due to the way Putin has directed the country (autocratic, poor economic development), Russia has become profoundly inattractive to the European countries in its potential sphere of influence (outside Belarus). Apart from for the gas, why would they want to align themselves with Russia?

But if Putin had gone the other direction in 2000, truly opening up to Europe and instilling some form of democracy (even if limited at the top; he could still do that little dance with Medvedev for example, or try some of Erdogan's tricks) - he could have developed Russia into a politcal and economic European superpower (given it has a larger population and more natural resources than Germany). That would have given him the sphere of influence he now craves, would have made NATO truly obsolete, and would have given the EU and rest of Europe less reason to keep cozying up to the US.

Certainly from that perspective, Russia's current geopolitical situation and standing is really a problem of Putin's own making.

 

[Raoul]

Yeah, that's more or less what I argued earlier somewhere. Due to the way Putin has directed the country (autocratic, poor economic development), Russia has become profoundly inattractive to the European countries in its potential sphere of influence (outside Belarus). Apart from for the gas, why would they want to align themselves with Russia?

But if Putin had gone the other direction in 2000, truly opening up to Europe and instilling some form of democracy (even if limited at the top; he could still do that little dance with Medvedev for example, or try some of Erdogan's tricks) - he could have developed Russia into a politcal and economic European superpower (given it has a larger population and more natural resources than Germany). That would have given him the sphere of influence he now craves, would have made NATO truly obsolete, and would have given the EU and rest of Europe less reason to keep cozying up to the US.

Certainly from that perspective, Russia's current geopolitical situation and standing is really a problem of Putin's own making.

100%. If Putin turned out to be the person many had incorrectly identified him as in the beginning (a technocratic administrator who could make the tough decisions necessary to bring Russia out of the wild west corruption of the 90s and into a more European system) then we would be living in a different world today. Instead, he turned out to be a hyper corrupt gangster, who looted and pillaged Russia's wealth for himself and his inner circle, while invading those around him.

 

[groovyalbert]

No brainer for Finland?

This is what I don't really get about those who want to levy blame at NATO in the current situation, and even the EU for their supposed expansions giving Putin the reason for his current invasion of Ukraine.

It's the people in those countries who want these memberships. If it was coming from NATO and the EU, they would already be members.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Yeah, that's more or less what I argued earlier somewhere. Due to the way Putin has directed the country (autocratic, poor economic development), Russia has become profoundly inattractive to the European countries in its potential sphere of influence (outside Belarus). Apart from for the gas, why would they want to align themselves with Russia?

But if Putin had gone the other direction in 2000, truly opening up to Europe and instilling some form of democracy (even if limited at the top; he could still do that little dance with Medvedev for example, or try some of Erdogan's tricks) - he could have developed Russia into a politcal and economic European superpower (given it has a larger population and more natural resources than Germany). That would have given him the sphere of influence he now craves, would have made NATO truly obsolete, and would have given the EU and rest of Europe less reason to keep cozying up to the US.

Certainly from that perspective, Russia's current geopolitical situation and standing is really a problem of Putin's own making.

There's definitely truth to this argument with the qualification that the first wave of NATO expansion was initiated before Putin (during Yeltsin's experiment with neoliberal shock doctrine) and the second post-Soviet expansion was finalized in 2004 before Putin was recognised as "Putin" (was being heralded by Western states, but Chechnyan War may be context for the second?).

 

[VorZakone]

Yeah, that's more or less what I argued earlier somewhere. Due to the way Putin has directed the country (autocratic, poor economic development), Russia has become profoundly inattractive to the European countries in its potential sphere of influence (outside Belarus). Apart from for the gas, why would they want to align themselves with Russia?

But if Putin had gone the other direction in 2000, truly opening up to Europe and instilling some form of democracy (even if limited at the top; he could still do that little dance with Medvedev for example, or try some of Erdogan's tricks) - he could have developed Russia into a politcal and economic European superpower (given it has a larger population and more natural resources than Germany). That would have given him the sphere of influence he now craves, would have made NATO truly obsolete, and would have given the EU and rest of Europe less reason to keep cozying up to the US.

Certainly from that perspective, Russia's current geopolitical situation and standing is really a problem of Putin's own making.

100% agreed. Russia has so much potential.

 

[Cheimoon]

There's definitely truth to this argument with the qualification that the first wave of NATO expansion was initiated before Putin (during Yeltsin's experiment with neoliberal shock doctrine) and the second post-Soviet expansion was finalized in 2004 before Putin was recognised as "Putin" (was being heralded by Western states, but Chechnyan War may be context for the second?).

True - but if Putin's long-term goal had been to develop Russia along the lines I described, then he wouldn't have had to worry about the NATO expansion, as his goals would have been to make NATO obsolete. In that scenario, by now, it may have been disbanded or at least become largely ceremonial - and that early NATO expansion wouldn't have mattered anymore.

All retrospective ifs and buts obviously, but some counterbalance to the power politics perspective that views any NATO expansion as inevitably leading to conflict with Russia.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

True - but if Putin's long-term goal had been to develop Russia along the lines I described, then he wouldn't have had to worry about the NATO expansion, as his goals would have been to make NATO obsolete. In that scenario, by now, it may have been disbanded or at least become largely ceremonial - and that early NATO expansion wouldn't have mattered anymore.

All retrospective ifs and buts obviously, but some counterbalance to the power politics perspective that views any NATO expansion as inevitably leading to conflict with Russia.

Yeah, I just don't buy that NATO expansion wouldn't have happened if Putin had done this or that (it was happening before Putin whilst Russia was trying to face West and during Putin's early reign when no one had him down as the tyrant he is recognized as today). Moreover, NATO has to come into conflict with Russia because it only exists insofar as Russia exists outside of it (the entire point of the alliance and perhaps a reason why Russian attempts to join under Yeltsin were not taken seriously). If Russia were in NATO, there would be no need for NATO. Technically, it should have been disbanded in 1991 but Russia clearly took on the role of the SU in the justification of NATO states (if not initially, then absolutely by 2008).

The upside is, whatever your opinions on how NATO got here, that the invasion of Ukraine has solidified the alliance and given it more justification than it has had since the 1980s.

 

[Suedesi]

I don't think anyone here (including myself) thought we'd get this far, this fast with respect to Russia's actions within Ukraine. This is geopolitics, no one has a real clue how this will play out - but in any geopolitical disputes as ever there are two sides to the story and in order to analyze it you need to be aware of both so you can understand what is fact, what is propaganda, what are you being told by what person for what reason etc.

In this situation, we know Russia has been very clear in its intentions to buffer its borders and stoping NATO encroaching on its borders
Ukraine on the other hand certainly has sovereignty and its citizens should be able to chart whatever course they see fit - the problem is a sizable Russian minority on the eastern part may not be fully on board with NATO/EU and there have been some unsavory characters on the nationalist Ukrainian side. (That's of course not justifying Putin's 'de-nazification' claims)

I'm really hoping there's a negotiated solution to stop the war - but you never know, there's national pride and a lot of global considerations in all of this so not sure what the solution is.

 

[MTF]

Yeah, I just don't buy that NATO expansion wouldn't have happened if Putin had done this or that (it was happening before Putin whilst Russia was trying to face West and during Putin's early reign when no one had him down as the tyrant he is recognized as today). Moreover, NATO has to come into conflict with Russia because it only exists insofar as Russia exists outside of it (the entire point of the alliance and perhaps a reason why Russian attempts to join under Yeltsin were not taken seriously). If Russia were in NATO, there would be no need for NATO. Technically, it should have been disbanded in 1991 but Russia clearly took on the role of the SU in the justification of NATO states (if not initially, then absolutely by 2008).

The upside is, whatever your opinions on how NATO got here, that the invasion of Ukraine has solidified the alliance and given it more justification than it has had since the 1980s.

I agree with you on most of that. For whatever is officially stated, NATO's underlying justification post-1991 became Russia. Czechia, Poland and Hungary joined as soon as 1999 mainly with an eye on the historical interventions they had suffered from Russia be it in USSR form or prior. As you said, it exists pretty much as European military opposition to Russia, additionally underwritten by the US.

But that still leaves room for interpretation as to the intent of NATO countries, and whether it would be aggressive towards Russia or not. My read is that it was and is not. The militaries of NATO countries generally were reduced from 1991 onwards, and the US based fewer and fewer forces permanently in Europe over time. It certainly didn't posture like an alliance looking to invade the country that historically is almost impossible to successfully invade.

What it did take away from Russia though, and even more with the later rounds of expansion, was Russia's political sphere of influence and with it some of their "great power" claims. I think that rattles Russia's internal politics and is ultimately what turned them bellicose. And while I understand the arguments of many that in terms of US and Western European security it might have been more stable to not expand NATO and let Russia have political veto over many of its neighboring countries, I'm not very confident that it would have been sufficient to placate Russia. In their times of relative internal stability and healthier economy, they might have set their eyes on Poland or Romania as targets to expand their sphere of influence.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

What it did take away from Russia though, and even more with the later rounds of expansion, was Russia's political sphere of influence and with it some of their "great power" claims. I think that rattles Russia's internal politics and is ultimately what turned them bellicose. And while I understand the arguments of many that in terms of US and Western European security it might have been more stable to not expand NATO and let Russia have political veto over many of its neighboring countries, I'm not very confident that it would have been sufficient to placate Russia. In their times of relative internal stability and healthier economy, they might have set their eyes on Poland or Romania as targets to expand their sphere of influence.

Yeah I agree. I can also understand why post-Soviet countries wanted to join. The problem is that for almost a decade you had an opportunity to devise an alternative security framework which included Russia and made the limits of each state's territorial boundaries clear. That was a (perhaps intentionally) missed opportunity. The argument scholars have made is that the West intentionally took advantage of a weak Russia during the Yeltsin years and that this, coupled with the collapse of the USSR, embittered many in Russia with respect to the West and their suspicions of NATO. I think that's probably correct and why you have large pro-Western sections of ex-Soviet states at odds with anti-Western segments (Georgia, Ukraine, etc.). The "what if" for me is not what could Putin have done differently, but what could the West have done differently post-Soviet collapse (economic aid akin to that given to Germany post-war and post-reunification along Marshall Plan lines, maybe). Academic now, but might not be in a post-Putin Russia where the West would be wise to avoid the same mistakes.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[hasanejaz88]

I don't think anyone here (including myself) thought we'd get this far, this fast with respect to Russia's actions within Ukraine. This is geopolitics, no one has a real clue how this will play out - but in any geopolitical disputes as ever there are two sides to the story and in order to analyze it you need to be aware of both so you can understand what is fact, what is propaganda, what are you being told by what person for what reason etc.

In this situation, we know Russia has been very clear in its intentions to buffer its borders and stoping NATO encroaching on its borders
Ukraine on the other hand certainly has sovereignty and its citizens should be able to chart whatever course they see fit - the problem is a sizable Russian minority on the eastern part may not be fully on board with NATO/EU and there have been some unsavory characters on the nationalist Ukrainian side. (That's of course not justifying Putin's 'de-nazification' claims)

I'm really hoping there's a negotiated solution to stop the war - but you never know, there's national pride and a lot of global considerations in all of this so not sure what the solution is.

This is one thing I fear about Ukraine in the future, it's never a good idea to strengthen extremist groups. Many examples of this biting back when things settle down.

Giving power and authority to Azov's, from 2014, can be dangerous in the future because it's not as if after the war is over they will go back to the periphery, they had large marches down Kiev. Not only the Azovs, but also glorifying right-wing separtists who fought against the Soviet Union, but also sided with the Nazi's and murdered Jews, in a way to reduce the influence of Russia and references to the past Soviet Union.

The US weaponized the Islamist extremists in Afghanistan in the 80's and then Syria in the 2010's, both lead to radical groups being created (Al-Qaeda/Taliban and ISIS) that caused terror in the world. Even for Pakistan, our current prime minister sided with an Islamist party to win election votes and now that party is causing a rise in extremism in the country.

You have to try to save your country, but there are dangerous limits you should not cross because it can lead to more trouble problems.

 

[moses]

Progressive in words, not in any real sense. For example, the women had the right to vote... but only in theory. In practice, nobody had the right to vote! So, yes, the women had the same rights as men, because no one had any rights. In my opinion, this is not "more progressive".

Anyway, this Putin regime is not socialist, not even in name. He did retain all the suppression mechanisms of the USSR. The "left", or "progressives", should really hate this regime, even without the imperialistic invasion of Ukraine. It is really unsettling to see so many in the "left" trying to justify this war.

Yeah, Russia is a post KGB state rather than a post socialist state.

Who is trying to justify the war? I've seen people give context but I don't think anyone is trying to justify it?

 

[moses]

This is one thing I fear about Ukraine in the future, it's never a good idea to strengthen extremist groups. Many examples of this biting back when things settle down.

Giving power and authority to Azov's, from 2014, can be dangerous in the future because it's not as if after the war is over they will go back to the periphery, they had large marches down Kiev. Not only the Azovs, but also glorifying right-wing separtists who fought against the Soviet Union, but also sided with the Nazi's and murdered Jews, in a way to reduce the influence of Russia and references to the past Soviet Union.

The US weaponized the Islamist extremists in Afghanistan in the 80's and then Syria in the 2010's, both lead to radical groups being created (Al-Qaeda/Taliban and ISIS) that caused terror in the world. Even for Pakistan, our current prime minister sided with an Islamist party to win election votes and now that party is causing a rise in extremism in the country.

You have to try to save your country, but there are dangerous limits you should not cross because it can lead to more trouble problems.

Very sensible post.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

This is one thing I fear about Ukraine in the future, it's never a good idea to strengthen extremist groups. Many examples of this biting back when things settle down.

Giving power and authority to Azov's, from 2014, can be dangerous in the future because it's not as if after the war is over they will go back to the periphery, they had large marches down Kiev. Not only the Azovs, but also glorifying right-wing separtists who fought against the Soviet Union, but also sided with the Nazi's and murdered Jews, in a way to reduce the influence of Russia and references to the past Soviet Union.

The US weaponized the Islamist extremists in Afghanistan in the 80's and then Syria in the 2010's, both lead to radical groups being created (Al-Qaeda/Taliban and ISIS) that caused terror in the world. Even for Pakistan, our current prime minister sided with an Islamist party to win election votes and now that party is causing a rise in extremism in the country.

You have to try to save your country, but there are dangerous limits you should not cross because it can lead to more trouble problems.

How much power and authority does Azov have though? They're a national guard gendarmerie, a civilian volunteer type of force, not regular army. Managing them post conflict should be easy enough.

The best thing about neo-nazis is that they align themselves with nazis and because of this are completely unpalatable to the vast majority of people. They also tend to be dumb, not least because they hold nazi ideals, and these factors impact their ability to gain mainstream acceptance. They simply have not been successful post WWII in advancing their cause because of all the shitty things the NSDAP did will never be forgotten. Ukraine is a bit of a special case because historically they have grievances with Russia so when the nazis am through in the 1940s they were welcomed but as noted, the end of WWII laid bare all the sins of nazism and because of this widespread acceptance of nazi ideals is never going to happen.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

How much power and authority does Azov have though? They're a national guard gendarmerie, a civilian volunteer type of force, not regular army. Managing them post conflict should be easy enough.

Might be harder than you think. He tried to bring them to heel once and was told to feck off.

Elected on a platform of de-escalation of hostilities with Russia, Zelensky was determined to enforce the so-called Steinmeier Formula conceived by then-German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier which called for elections in the Russian-speaking regions of Donetsk and Lugansk.

In a face-to-face confrontation with militants from the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion who had launched a campaign to sabotage the peace initiative called “No to Capitulation,” Zelensky encountered a wall of obstinacy.

With appeals for disengagement from the frontlines firmly rejected, Zelensky melted down on camera. “I’m the president of this country. I’m 41 years old. I’m not a loser. I came to you and told you: remove the weapons,” Zelensky implored the fighters.

President of Ukraine Zelensky has visited disengaging area in Zolote today https://t.co/scFZLt45C2 pic.twitter.com/JlD1cWPQ39
— Liveuamap (@Liveuamap) October 26, 2019

Once video of the stormy confrontation spread across Ukrainian social media channels, Zelensky became the target of an angry backlash.

Andriy Biletsky, the proudly fascist Azov Battalion leader who once pledged to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semite-led Untermenschen”, vowed to bring thousands of fighters to Zolote if Zelensky pressed any further. Meanwhile, a parliamentarian from the party of former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko openly fantasized about Zelensky being blown to bits by a militant’s grenade.

Though Zelensky achieved a minor disengagement, the neo-Nazi paramilitaries escalated their “No Capitulation” campaign. And within months, fighting began to heat up again in Zolote, sparking a new cycle of violations of the Minsk Agreement.

By this point, Azov had been formally incorporated into the Ukrainian military and its street vigilante wing, known as the National Corps, was deployed across the country under the watch of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry, and alongside the National Police. In December 2021, Zelensky would be seen delivering a “Hero of Ukraine” award to a leader of the fascistic Right Sector in a ceremony in Ukraine’s parliament.
...

Following his failed attempt to demobilize neo-Nazi militants in the town of Zolote in October 2019, Zelensky called the fighters to the table, telling reporters “I met with veterans yesterday. Everyone was there – the National Corps, Azov, and everyone else.”

A few seats away from the Jewish president was Yehven Karas, the leader of the neo-Nazi C14 gang.

During the Maidan “Revolution of Dignity” that ousted Ukraine’s elected president in 2014, C14 activists took over Kiev’s city hall and plastered its walls with neo-Nazi insignia before taking shelter in the Canadian embassy.

As the former youth wing of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party, C14 appears to draw its name from the infamous 14 words of US neo-Nazi leader David Lane: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

By offering to carry out acts of spectacular violence on behalf of anyone willing to pay, the hooligans have fostered a cozy relationship with various governing bodies and powerful elites across Ukraine.

C14 neo-Nazi gang offers to carry out violence-for-hire: “C14 works for you. Help us keep afloat, and we will help you. For regular donors, we are opening a box for wishes. Which of your enemies would you like to make life difficult for? We’ll try to do that.”
A March 2018 report by Reuters stated that “C14 and Kiev’s city government recently signed an agreement allowing C14 to establish a ‘municipal guard’ to patrol the streets,” effectively giving them the sanction of the state to carry out pogroms.

As The Grayzone reported, C14 led raid to “purge” Romani from Kiev’s railway station in collaboration with the Kiev police.

The C14 Nazi terror gang signed an agreement with the Kiev municipal government to patrol its streets. This footage taken just a few months later in 2018 shows them carrying out a pogrom against a Romani camp. pic.twitter.com/9aAA86K8TQ
— Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) February 28, 2022

Not only was this activity sanctioned by the Kiev city government, the US government itself saw little problem with it, hosting Bondar at an official US government institution in Kiev where he bragged about the pogroms. C14 continued to receive state funding throughout 2018 for “national-patriotic education.”

Karas has claimed that the Ukrainian Security Serves would “pass on” information regarding pro-separatist rallies “not only [to] us, but also Azov, the Right Sector and so on.”
...

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/04/nazis-ukrainian-war-russia/

Zelensky's main patron is also up to his neck in funding of the Azov and various other far-right Ukrainian militias. It's clearly a relationship of convenience, but I don't see these people (however much a minority) fading into the background post-War.

 

[hasanejaz88]

How much power and authority does Azov have though? They're a national guard gendarmerie, a civilian volunteer type of force, not regular army. Managing them post conflict should be easy enough.

The best thing about neo-nazis is that they align themselves with nazis and because of this are completely unpalatable to the vast majority of people. They also tend to be dumb, not least because they hold nazi ideals, and these factors impact their ability to gain mainstream acceptance. They simply have not been successful post WWII in advancing their cause because of all the shitty things the NSDAP did will never be forgotten. Ukraine is a bit of a special case because historically they have grievances with Russia so when the nazis am through in the 1940s they were welcomed but as noted, the end of WWII laid bare all the sins of nazism and because of this widespread acceptance of nazi ideals is never going to happen.

I think you're underestimating their numbers, which hasn't grown since 2014. There was a video posted from mid of last year which shows far right groups from the US coming to Ukraine to fight alongside them and essentially train with them. Other parties look at the freedom the Azovs are given as an opportunity to make themselves stronger.

I mean, there Ukrainian military shared a video by the Azovs about coating their bullets in pig blood to 'send the orcs to hell'. That's legitimizing a form of islamopobia

 

[The Corinthian]

Really takes the piss. Imagine how many people have died in dinghy’s trying to get to Dover.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I think you're underestimating their numbers, which hasn't grown since 2014. There was a video posted from mid of last year which shows far right groups from the US coming to Ukraine to fight alongside them and essentially train with them. Other parties look at the freedom the Azovs are given as an opportunity to make themselves stronger.

And you are over-estimating their numbers, reach and appeal. Azov was legislated to have up to 12,000 serving members, of whom 10-20% are suspected to be neo-nazis today (Al Jazeera estimates the battallion's numbers to be around 900..I have no idea, take it or leave it, there are probably more now). That's a very small number in a country of 44 million. They even have some members of Jewish ancestry. The battalion's leader has expressed admiration for Israel and suggests it should be a role model for Ukraine (although that could be good or bad from a blood purity/race perspective )

Those foreign far-right types that came over are small in number, too. I go back to my comment on the great thing about neo-nazis being so fringe. Yes they can be scary when you see them up close but society does not accept them nor will it tolerate them moving inward from the fringes they currently occupy.

We should also consider the historic abuses that Russia has committed in Ukraine and that this may make certain elements of nazism appealing there. It's actually a bit hypocritical because German nazis would have considered Ukrainians (and most other neo-nazis worldwide but that's another discussion) untermensch but for Azov the alignment to neo-nazism has the benefit of unsettling Russia and the battalion was born when Russia was again beginning to abuse Ukraine.

I'll also note that the US and Canada have refused to provide training to Azov since 2015 due to their association with neo-nazi ideology.

I mean, there Ukrainian military shared a video by the Azovs about coating their bullets in pig blood to 'send the orcs to hell'. That's legitimizing a form of islamopobia

I've discussed this one before but am happy to offer additional context. It's not like Azov are threatening to shoot real Muslims with those bullets. The Kadyrovsty are fake Muslims who deserve the very worst the world has to offer and, if their belief system is true, would never merit a place in paradise due to their earthly activities of murder, rape, torture and kidnapping, all performed with relish at a systemic level. This is wartime and you use every means to unsettle your enemy. Let's see what happens if Ukraine are fortunate enough to survive. The country is, after all, fighting for its very existence.

edit: added some active force numbers

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Might be harder than you think. He tried to bring them to heel once and was told to feck off.




Zelensky's main patron is also up to his neck in funding of the Azov and various other far-right Ukrainian militias. It's clearly a relationship of convenience, but I don't see these people (however much a minority) fading into the background post-War.

To be fair despite the Minsk agreement, Ukraine and Russia have been essentially in conflict since 2014. Azov is a big part of that. They might not fade away but I can't see them growing in prominence like black and brown shirts in the 1930s moving from paramilitary groups to political parties to forming governments and consolidating power in a dictator.

 

[InspiRED]

You’re being a tad cynical.

Which part - two party system or bought up media?

Cant really see how the two party system is cynical it’s just a statement of fact. Any reasonable voter would instantly seek to have it that their vote, regardless of which party, would count towards the election of government officials. But obviously it doesn’t. The two main parties have such a stranglehold on it that the political will to change it is effectively null, despite the obvious wishes of the ‘democratic’ citizens. What’s left not to be cynical about with that? And it’s probably even worse in the US.

Regarding: bought media, possibly. There’s nothing to stop any Tom dick or harry setting up a news website now and we have choice on where we get our news, don’t have to use a vpn to access legitimate sources etc. However, there is a large contingent of established media bought by people like Murdoch and uset to unsubtly push a political agenda. It’s hardly news,

in conclusion, liberal democracy is oversold. Anyone pushing a far left agenda would be instantly shot down, not by voters, but the two main political parties and a massive chunk of the mainstream media. There is no conceivable platform on which such a campaign could gain any traction whatsoever. It’s not cynicism it’s reality. I don’t necessarily advocate a far left perspective myself for what it’s worth, but let’s at least acknowledge reality.