I think it is a difficult case that the invasion was a net benefit in overall humanitarian terms.
The invasion occurred suddenly, without any final demands articulated to avoid war.
NATO expansion was a cause. Russian expansion was a cause. I oppose both, and take issue with the campist position of denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.
It is a mistake to divide the world by bad states versus good states. We can sympathize with workers oppressed by Ukraine, but our side should not be Russia. Our side is the international workers of the world.
Our side is the international workers of the world.
That’s another reason we critically support Russia in this conflict: they have been pitted against NATO, and the weakening of NATO is a net gain for the entire global south no matter who does it.
Russia is motivated not simply by dismantling the imperial core, but by becoming hegemonic. The imperial periphery would gain nothing by trading one overseas hegemon for another.
A) You’re assuming their motivations based on the motivations of the empire you and I live in. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t
B) It seems like the many periphery countries that have allied themselves with the Russian Federation think otherwise, and they’re in a better position to know what they would benefit from than you or I
C) I know you didn’t mention this but I just wanna say that the downvote isn’t mine
If your side is with the international workers of the world, then the worst outcome is Russia losing, and being weakened into opening up its markets for foreign plunder. Imperialism is the highest contradiction today, helmed by the US Empire. This isn’t simply “campism,” but a recognition that continuing to fuel the US Empire delays the global transition to socialism. Opposing both sides sounds nice from a sloganeering perspective, but unless you have an alternative that’s just saying you don’t think it actually matters.
The alternative, literally, is the working class developing power.
Russian expansion may seem appealing because US expansion is problematic, but Russian expansion is problematic all the same.
Even if the weakening of US hegemony hastens the advent of socialism, atrocities against civilian populations in no way resembles the world we want to build.
The working class in Russia is rallying around the CPRF, desiring a return to socialism. This isn’t yet dominant, but is a rising trend. The working classes in Ukraine support an end to the war. It’s mostly supported by the nationalists in Ukraine to continue, rather than surrender the four Oblasts that already want to be a part of Russia anyways.
The war itself isn’t about “Russian expansion,” but even if it was, the US is the world hegemon and therefore Russia could never even hope to be as bad. Calling it “problematic all the same” is disingenuous and erases the fact that the US Empire is the one that is plundering the global south, and is the one with hundreds of overseas millitary bases, not Russia.
Atrocities committed by Kiev and Russia aren’t good, I agree. I have never once said “war crimes good” in this entire conversation. I don’t want a world with war crimes. The best course to stop it is for Kiev to cede the 4 oblasts and agree to neutrality with NATO. That way the people of Donetsk and Luhansk are protected from the Banderites, and the Ukrainian conscripts aren’t sent to die for wealthy capitalists in the US Empire.
I repeat that Russia wants not simply to dismantle US imperialism, but also would establish itself as hegemon at any opportunity, however absurdly remote such possibility may seem. Thus, defending Russia is an error.
I agree that NATO and the US carry tremendous responsibility, and that the best outcome from the present would be territorial concession as a condition for both sides concluding belligerence.
Even if you’re correct in saying Russia wants to establish itself as a new hegemon, it currently has a paltry share of the world’s financial capital, and no colonies nor neocolonies. It doesn’t have hundreds of millitary bases overseas. It could not simply replace the US Empire, and as a consequence it is better to critically support Russia over the US Empire.
I think it is a difficult case that the invasion was a net benefit in overall humanitarian terms.
The invasion occurred suddenly, without any final demands articulated to avoid war.
NATO expansion was a cause. Russian expansion was a cause. I oppose both, and take issue with the campist position of denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.
It is a mistake to divide the world by bad states versus good states. We can sympathize with workers oppressed by Ukraine, but our side should not be Russia. Our side is the international workers of the world.
That’s another reason we critically support Russia in this conflict: they have been pitted against NATO, and the weakening of NATO is a net gain for the entire global south no matter who does it.
Russia is motivated not simply by dismantling the imperial core, but by becoming hegemonic. The imperial periphery would gain nothing by trading one overseas hegemon for another.
A) You’re assuming their motivations based on the motivations of the empire you and I live in. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t
B) It seems like the many periphery countries that have allied themselves with the Russian Federation think otherwise, and they’re in a better position to know what they would benefit from than you or I
C) I know you didn’t mention this but I just wanna say that the downvote isn’t mine
If your side is with the international workers of the world, then the worst outcome is Russia losing, and being weakened into opening up its markets for foreign plunder. Imperialism is the highest contradiction today, helmed by the US Empire. This isn’t simply “campism,” but a recognition that continuing to fuel the US Empire delays the global transition to socialism. Opposing both sides sounds nice from a sloganeering perspective, but unless you have an alternative that’s just saying you don’t think it actually matters.
The alternative, literally, is the working class developing power.
Russian expansion may seem appealing because US expansion is problematic, but Russian expansion is problematic all the same.
Even if the weakening of US hegemony hastens the advent of socialism, atrocities against civilian populations in no way resembles the world we want to build.
The working class in Russia is rallying around the CPRF, desiring a return to socialism. This isn’t yet dominant, but is a rising trend. The working classes in Ukraine support an end to the war. It’s mostly supported by the nationalists in Ukraine to continue, rather than surrender the four Oblasts that already want to be a part of Russia anyways.
The war itself isn’t about “Russian expansion,” but even if it was, the US is the world hegemon and therefore Russia could never even hope to be as bad. Calling it “problematic all the same” is disingenuous and erases the fact that the US Empire is the one that is plundering the global south, and is the one with hundreds of overseas millitary bases, not Russia.
Atrocities committed by Kiev and Russia aren’t good, I agree. I have never once said “war crimes good” in this entire conversation. I don’t want a world with war crimes. The best course to stop it is for Kiev to cede the 4 oblasts and agree to neutrality with NATO. That way the people of Donetsk and Luhansk are protected from the Banderites, and the Ukrainian conscripts aren’t sent to die for wealthy capitalists in the US Empire.
I repeat that Russia wants not simply to dismantle US imperialism, but also would establish itself as hegemon at any opportunity, however absurdly remote such possibility may seem. Thus, defending Russia is an error.
I agree that NATO and the US carry tremendous responsibility, and that the best outcome from the present would be territorial concession as a condition for both sides concluding belligerence.
Even if you’re correct in saying Russia wants to establish itself as a new hegemon, it currently has a paltry share of the world’s financial capital, and no colonies nor neocolonies. It doesn’t have hundreds of millitary bases overseas. It could not simply replace the US Empire, and as a consequence it is better to critically support Russia over the US Empire.