I’ve been trying to find a good Marxist instance, but Lemmygrad and Hexbear are widely hated. Why is that? Are there any good leftist instances?

  • Zyratoxx@lemm.ee
    21·
    1 year ago

    What exactly is the problem with 14. this is how it should be. After all, borders shouldn’t be recognised for nothing you know.

    1. does indeed highlight the goal of Ukraine becoming an eventual member but it doesn’t state when. They’d certainly need to clarify Crimea first so that Ukraine doesn’t join and trigger Article 5 on Crimea. And as I said, looking at Sweden I’d not be so sure about the if either.

    And even if Ukraine became a member state it wouldn’t be that easy to just attack Russia and expect NATO to help. They’re not allowed to trigger Article 5 if they are the aggressor and triggering Article 4 would likely not succeed as the risks of (nuclear) backlash are too high. I am aware that I am making assumptions here, and that this part might vary depending on the picture you have of NATO and their member states but I am certain, that they would not be so stupid to trigger a war that would likely be very unpopular within the populations of the various member states. But that point is overall highly debatable.

    Regarding the point about Nato expansion: yes, the fact that it has expanded regardless of that oral treaty is a pity. But on the other hand, why would you so desperately hold on to something that apparently wasn’t even worth making a REAL treaty for. A signed one on paper. You cannot tell me anybody would be naive enough to take something that was orally agreed on without a signed treaty on paper for granted when the last decades have made it clear that sometimes even signed treaties aren’t worth their paper. Of course it’s a move of betrayal for Russia but as I mentioned, the US is good at provoking and oral assurances aren’t exactly something I would trust.

    And on the other Hand, Russia hasn’t been that innocent either with a habit of solving disagreements with especially Georgia & Ukraine by using deterrence and the sledgehammer. And fair enough, that Ukraine hasn’t been innocent either. That’s for example why I was pretty neutral / hostile towards both sides before the war began. I especially dislike(d) how badly Ukraine tried and still tries to erase it’s Soviet history.

    But (at least for me) that still does not justify the means.

    Regarding your last claim: do you have any evidence to back that up? I heard numerous claims that both Russia & Nato got invasion plans for plenty of countries. I read articles (or in that case just their headlines because I thought of them to be absurd) that Russia had concrete plans for attacking Japan and Kazakhstan and what not, and likewise I read these kinda claims from the other side.

    But as far as I am concerned these sorts of articles only exist to lure you towards a side and or make quick cash by spreading havoc and hate.

    In any case I might call it a day. I need to get some stuff done. Was a nice debate tho. Might reply tomorrow if there’s anything else. Stay safe & healthy my lemmygrader comrades haha.

    • Camarada Forte@lemmygrad.ml
      2·
      1 year ago

      What exactly is the problem with 14. this is how it should be. After all, borders shouldn’t be recognised for nothing you know.

      They specifically mention Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. They could’ve said they reiterate the territorial integrity and sovereignty of any country, or of any European country, whatever. But they specifically listed these countries which they have a massive influence on. So it’s a sign there was something going on there.

      But on the other hand, why would you so desperately hold on to something that apparently wasn’t even worth making a REAL treaty for.

      A treaty is certainly more concrete, and I agree with you. What’s important about this exchange is that the Russians made it clear they found NATO expansion threatening since the 90’s and every time it expanded it was thoroughly and systematically condemned by Russian authorities. NATO continued expanding nonetheless, warning after warning. NATO was looking for war, and pushing Eastern European countries towards war with Russia.

      And on the other Hand, Russia hasn’t been that innocent either with a habit of solving disagreements with especially Georgia & Ukraine by using deterrence and the sledgehammer.

      But (at least for me) that still does not justify the means.

      Certainly. The idea is not to justify the war, but to understand it in context. These were countries which were under Russian influence for at least a century and only recently weaponized to struggle against Russia. This does not exempt Russia, obviously, though context is always necessary.

      Regarding your last claim: do you have any evidence to back that up?

      Unfortunately, I don’t have access to Ukrainian internal military documents, I can only attest it through indirect evidence. First, since the 2014 Euromaidan coup, Ukraine has been adopting an anti-Russian rhetoric and accepted neo-Nazi batallions (Azov, Pravy Sektor) into their army. This form of Nazism was against Russians specifically, treating them as subhumans. Also since 2014, these neo-Nazi militias has constantly harassed ethnically Russian people inside Ukraine on the Donbass region.

      The Ukrainian government adopted textbooks in schools which taught children to hate Russia, see some evidence of this in this article by Sputnik (it’s a Russian source, but there are exceptional journalists from dozens of countries there). Here is an anti-Russian Ukrainian propaganda video being shown in a classroom way before the war, to illustrate this point.

      This article by the Tricontinental directly responds to your question, too. It mentions how Ukraine military increased its spending by 500% from 2014–2019 and received military equipment from the West, along with military trainining, exercises and drills with NATO troops.

      More indirect evidence includes this article from RAND Corporation, which is a very influential think-tank which serves as an advisor to the Pentagon. The article discusses strategies to “stress” the Russian economy, through exploiting its vulnerabilities and prompting a “costly Russian response.” Among the geopolitical measures suggested, there is:

      Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.

      Increasing U.S. forces in Europe, increasing European NATO member ground capabilities, and deploying a large number of NATO forces on the Russian border would likely have only limited effects on extending Russia. All the options would enhance deterrence, but the risks vary. A general increase in NATO ground force capabilities in Europe—including closing European NATO member readiness gaps and increasing the number of U.S. forces stationed in traditional locations in Western Europe—would have limited risks. But large-scale deployments on Russia’s borders would increase the risk of conflict with Russia, particularly if perceived as challenging Russia’s position in eastern Ukraine, Belarus, or the Caucasus.

      At least for me, it shows the US military leadership was researching ways to actively provoke and cause a response from Russia so it hurts their economy. And since the US also had a finger in the Euromaidan coup of 2014, it’s very clear that the US was using Ukraine as an agent of a proxy war to affect the Russian economy for years before the Russian invasion.