Russia invades Ukraine

[zompist]

Eh, I don't mind feel-good Ukrainian stuff— there's a hilarious Twitter account, for instance, devoted to the exploits of Ukrainian tractors.

My complaint in fact is that it's hard to follow where Ukraine is fighting back and how. I'm sure this is mostly intentional: its strategy is to trade space for time, to attack unpredictably and at the flanks, and to make advance and retreat difficult— the last thing they need is the location and movements of all their troops geolocated.

If you read military history, it's always omniscient: "General Daring faced two choices. The enemy was located at X; his forces were at Y..." By contrast CNN's headlines are always RUSSIANS BOMB STUFF MORE. Those omniscient histories are far in the future.

[Civil War Bugle]

I am somewhat intentionally discounting the Ukrainian casualty figures for that reason - it's clear that Russia isn't doing nearly as well as Russia would like and that Ukraine is doing as well as might reasonably be expected, but given the nature of how wars work, I would have to do nothing but research to have an accurate idea of what is REALLY going on, and it's amusing to see the tractor stuff for the interim before someone publishes a book which benefits from hindsight on the topic.

My workplace skews heavily Republican, and I feel mildly surprised that I suddenly am not needing to hold my tongue on politics at work since a lot of my coworkers have flipflopped on the topic of Russia. However I appear to have unintentionally riled up one of the few people who is still ardently and vocally pro-Russia and who is now regularly cornering me at the time clock to explain to me why I should listen to Russian propaganda instead of American propaganda.

[rotting bones]

One thing about the tankies and the other leftists with their new-found Carl Schmitt-esque realism is how they deny agency to the peoples of the eastern European countries which democratically decided to join NATO specifically to protect themselves from Russian imperialism (and anyone who denies that Russia is an imperialist power is either an idiot or disingenuous, and to an eastern European Russia is a greater imperialist threat than America), as if to them people are just pawns in geopolitical games with no will of their own, who are to be parceled out to one country's sphere of influence or another without taking their own interests into account. All of this smells like they went around one side of the so-called "political circle" and ended up on the other side. (Of course the "political circle" really isn't valid because anarchism belongs to the very far left yet is diametrically opposed to the very far right.)

#NotAll tankies are supporting Russian imperialism. Some of them are honestly trying to report the truth as they see it: https://youtu.be/GUX49qg22Os (Note: Not every fact in this video is relevant in the way it's presented IMO.)

Marxist theory has always been extremely reality-based. The earlier you go, the more so. The people who find Marx to be esoteric and spiritual just have low reading comprehension. To understand it, you have to treat Capital the same way you approach any other technical manuscript. If someone can't read a math book, they can't understand the central hypothesis of Capital either.

Fascism originated as a barbaric bastardization of Marxism that insists on calling itself "civilization".

All of today's spirituality and morality came in with the New Left. It has nothing to do with Marxism.

[Travis B.]

#NotAll tankies are supporting Russian imperialism. Some of them are honestly trying to report the truth as they see it: https://youtu.be/GUX49qg22Os (Note: Not every fact in this video is relevant in the way it's presented IMO.)

Marxist theory has always been extremely reality-based. The earlier you go, the more so. The people who find Marx to be esoteric and spiritual just have low reading comprehension. To understand it, you have to treat Capital the same way you approach any other technical manuscript. If someone can't read a math book, they can't understand the central hypothesis of Capital either.

Fascism originated as a barbaric bastardization of Marxism that insists on calling itself "civilization".

All of today's spirituality and morality came in with the New Left. It has nothing to do with Marxism.

By "realism" I in particular am referring to the school of thought that confuses is with ought and thus has a strong tendency towards believing that might makes right.

[Linguoboy]

Eh, I don't mind feel-good Ukrainian stuff— there's a hilarious Twitter account, for instance, devoted to the exploits of Ukrainian tractors.

That sort of stuff is good fun, but I worry about my friends lowering their guard against misinformation when the news is what they want it to be. For instance, yesterday a friend of mine shared a headline about Belarusian railway workers sabotaging rail lines into Ukraine. I'd seen the same article days before but I declined to share it because the only source is a Ukrainian railway official who claims that he got the news via phone call from his Belarusian counterpart. The only major Western outlet to run the story is the Daily Express and they have done nothing to corroborate the story. I pointed this out to him and he responded by...repeating what the Ukrainian official was quoted as saying. I want the story to be true every bit as much as he does but wishing alone doesn't change facts and as of yet the facts here are fuzzy at best.

[alice]

Here's what really happened.

[Travis B.]

Here's what really happened.

Is that site full of tankies or what?

[Moose-tache]

Apparently the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany hinted that Ukraine should have nukes again (not official Ukrainian policy). I think the general idea that nukes are an alternative to being in NATO is an idea that some right wingers in Ukraine endorse. But I doubt it would ever happen. The Bush administration backed down from putting defensive conventional missiles in Poland because it almost started WWIII; I can't imagine anyone would think putting nukes back in Ukraine would be a good idea. More to the point, if that was Putin's reasoning, wouldn't he say so? It's a way better escuse than "de-Nazifying the Jewish guy."

[Travis B.]

Apparently the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany hinted that Ukraine should have nukes again (not official Ukrainian policy). I think the general idea that nukes are an alternative to being in NATO is an idea that some right wingers in Ukraine endorse. But I doubt it would ever happen. The Bush administration backed down from putting defensive conventional missiles in Poland because it almost started WWIII; I can't imagine anyone would think putting nukes back in Ukraine would be a good idea. More to the point, if that was Putin's reasoning, wouldn't he say so? It's a way better escuse than "de-Nazifying the Jewish guy."

I should note that said comment occurred earlier in 2021, so it is not a new development. You're right in saying, though, that if this war were about Ukrainian nukes, Putin definitely would have said so, as that's an infinitely better excuse than the excuses he has been making so far.

[zompist]

Ukraine didn't have nukes in any effective sense. A huge fraction of the USSR's nukes were within Ukraine, but they were not under the control of independent Ukraine. Wikipedia suggests that they were all ICBMs aimed at the US, which would have made them pretty useless as a deterrent.

As for deterrence now, I'd put it this way: if Russia wins this war, then non-proliferation loses. Everybody near Russia either joins (nuclear-armed) NATO, or develops its own nukes. It's not like countries around the world haven't noticed the relative inviolability of North Korea vs. Iraq.

Non-proliferation is better, because the more nukes in the world, the more the possibility that some idiot decides to fire them. But Ukraine (in 1994) was offered a deal: give up your nukes and the signatories, including Russia, would guarantee its borders. Russia violated that deal. When nuclear powers behave that way, it's much harder for non-nuclear powers to keep being virtuous.

[alice]

For what it's worth, how differently might things have gone if Trump was still president?

[Travis B.]

For what it's worth, how differently might things have gone if Trump was still president?

Probably Russia wouldn't be getting crushed economically nearly as hard and there would be no arms flowing to Ukraine from the US.

[zompist]

For what it's worth, how differently might things have gone if Trump was still president?

Russia would win. No Western unity, no sanctions, no arms.

Trump actively worked to destroy NATO; he liked Putin personally; he saw no problem with him grabbing Crimea. In our timeline his initial reaction to the invasion was to cheer Putin on. He held up military aid to Ukraine to try to blackmail Zelenskyy into making up propaganda for him. Tucker Carlson's overt pro-Putinism is probably the model– Carlson learned the Trumpist line very well.

Besides, the Trump gaffe/troll machine would be on full display. He'd be mouthing off about CRT or trans kids or whatever. When a shit-flinging monkey is president, it's hard to focus— Ukraine would be competing for attention with all his other outrages.

[zompist]

The Russians are finally learning from the American army. Namely, the tradition of fragging your lieutenant. (In this case: running him over with a tank. During battle.)

[Travis B.]

This was written shortly before Russia invaded Ukraine, but it gives a very good analysis of the Russia-Ukraine war from a socialist perspective which is not some sort of apology for Putin or useless pleading for peace.

[alice]

This was written shortly before Russia invaded Ukraine, but it gives a very good analysis of the Russia-Ukraine war from a socialist perspective which is not some sort of apology for Putin or useless pleading for peace.

It's very good indeed, and level-headed, which is unusual for the Marxist Left in this country. I hope it makes the SWP apopleptic.

[Travis B.]

This was written shortly before Russia invaded Ukraine, but it gives a very good analysis of the Russia-Ukraine war from a socialist perspective which is not some sort of apology for Putin or useless pleading for peace.

It's very good indeed, and level-headed, which is unusual for the Marxist Left in this country. I hope it makes the SWP apopleptic.

I just looked at the comments, and apparently that did make some tankie apoplectic indeed...

[alice]

This was written shortly before Russia invaded Ukraine, but it gives a very good analysis of the Russia-Ukraine war from a socialist perspective which is not some sort of apology for Putin or useless pleading for peace.

It's very good indeed, and level-headed, which is unusual for the Marxist Left in this country. I hope it makes the SWP apopleptic.

I just looked at the comments, and apparently that did make some tankie apoplectic indeed...

Hahaha! I just found the comments...

[keenir]

For what it's worth, how differently might things have gone if Trump was still president?

Probably Russia wouldn't be getting crushed economically nearly as hard and there would be no arms flowing to Ukraine from the US.

not officially, anyway. i'd wager (or at least hope) that unofficially, lots of aid and arms would be heading to Ukraine. (sans Trump, some cities are sending lots and lots of their spare guns to them)

[rotting bones]

At this point, Marxist theory, much like Freudian psychoanalysis, allows you to argue for almost anything you like. If you want a precedent for a national defence war in alliance with fascists, see Mao's theory of primary and secondary contradictions. IIRC it's an elaboration of Marxist theory justifying his alliance with the Chinese nationalists to fight Japan. Why wouldn't internet Marxists apply that in the case of Ukraine? I suspect many of them derive revenue from anti-US media like RT and Press TV. They might have been induced to overlook that if Ukraine had a prominent Marxist movement, or if it were part of the Third World. (There's an ideology called Maoism Third Worldism, which says that in a globalized economy, a Marxist revolution is only possible in the Third World.) These Marxists don't win anything from Ukraine's success, neither in terms of revolutionary potential nor cash.