To be honest I don’t understand it whatsoever I just go on chapo.chat and look at the posts on there. Now there are posts from other places which is neat. I don’t leave the site though as I don’t want to make a new account. Idk if I’m even doing it right or wrong.
I mean I do agree with you (as a genocide studies scholar in training, God willing!), but I think your view of the US as just a clumsy, misguided oaf doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is not accurate. It was never the case that the US tried to build a democratic government and failed-from the very start the US instilled Bremer (that idiot) as a dictator; he openly restricted freedom of the press, freedom of speech and association, and had people critical of the CPA arrested. Then afterwards the US tried to interfere in the elections to support Allawi but failed miserably. The CIA and the US embassy has always had a huge role in the picking of Iraqi Prime Ministers and other ministers and has never stopped quashing Iraqi self-determination and democratic will. Just look at what they supported Maliki through!
Yes, but that is not a valid reason to justify the war because an autonomous Kurdish zone had already been set up after the Anfal in 1992. The only way Iraqi troops got in there is when the KDP invited them in during the Kurdish Civil War from 1994-7. Then once that was mediated and the KRG was split into two the Iraqi Army was no longer allowed in. The only real change 2003 brought was the legalising and formal institutionalisation of the KRG such that foreign capital was more willing to invest in it (encouraged, in fact, as the US tried to rebuild Iraq to stabilise things) and it had a big shiny “legal” sticker on it. The realities on the ground didn’t change though, especially as the constitutional articles surrounding referendums on Kirkuk and other disputed areas never came to fruition.
So by 2003 the Kurdish Question in Iraq had not been solved, but it had certainly been pacified in intensity, because a de facto independent KRG already existed!
I get what you’re saying, though. Yes, Saddam was an abhorrent and awful leader who was a genocidaire. However, the war was still an illegal catastrophe based on falsehoods that made things drastically worse for the Iraqi people. It is unjustifiable even when you take Saddam’s terrible-ness into account.
I think that is just a fundamentally one-sided understanding of why the Minsk Agreement failed to be honest. It was a poorly-written, unimplementable deal that neither side took seriously. It’s not like the D/LPRs and Russia were saints here. Indeed, there also isn’t much reason to believe the D/LPRs were, beyond the first year or so, really representative of the people in the region’s desires, since the original independent-minded leaders were replaced by those much closer to Russia. FURTHERMORE, the Minsk agreement was simply too unpopular in Ukraine for any government to survive implementing it. Ukrainians largely viewed the D/LPRs as Russian proxies (to what extent they are is arguable, but they certainly were less so as time went on and never were even to start with) and, in large, abhorred this sort of Russian influence.
It wasn’t just because Ukrainian state was war-mongering and poor baby Russia was forced to step in. This is not to say at all that the Ukrainian Government made no mis-steps in the build-up to the war-yes, they definitely did, and the Ukrainians simply didn’t believe Putin would be rash or stupid enough to launch such an invasion until very close to the time so never really backed down from a maximalist NATO position and didn’t prepare properly for early-war defences. But it’s not like you are saying. Both sides caused the failure of Minsk, and neither side was ready to adhere to it.
I don’t think that is in any contradiction w/ my comment whatsoever.
I think a peace deal involving referendums in these areas (not under military occupation-creates unfair and unfree conditions for a referendum e.g., as in Crimea!) would identify the actual will of the people in these parts of the Donbas. I expect heavily that Crimea above all would vote to leave Ukraine and I think it has every right to do so ethically-speaking, though I do not think the referendum was carried out in free/fair conditions.
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.
Naturally the account has been suspended lol.
Context?
You know, I am reading Rabinowitch’s book on the July-October 1917 period and what really strikes me is how all the leading Bolsheviks-including Lenin-really wanted the transfer of power to the soviets to be peaceful. They pretty much exhausted every option until the right-SRs/right-Mensheviks and Kerensky types gave them no possible alternative to violent insurrection. There were differences over the timing and tactics of this insurrection (on one hand, those like Lenin and later Bubnov and Sverdlov who wanted insurrection immediately, those in the ‘centre’ like Stalin, Trotsky, Volodarsky who supported insurrection soon but wanted to shore up support in the provinces + at the front more, and those on the party right like Zinoviev and Kamenev who wanted to create a democratic worker’s republic with the SRs and Menshevik internationalists before beginning any violence to ensure full peasant support).
I didn’t know that at all. It shows how these guys-especially in 1917-did not like violence, did not glorify it, and did not fetishise it. They tried to avoid it and were all scared of unleashing the horrific civil war that eventually did come to pass. It’s something to remember.
Violence is bad and scary and should be only be wielded with immense caution and respect, but at the same time, when the time comes, you have to be ready for the decisive confrontation. Maybe Kamenev or Zinoviev, or maybe Volodarsky and Podvoisky, were actually right and it would have been better to wait longer until the correlation of forces was more on their side and the civil war could have been lessened at the very least. Maybe they were wrong and the revolutionary moment would have passed and the ProvGov would’ve re-gathered its strength. I don’t know. I’m still reading the book!
I work at a chain bakery and it’s the same. Every day there’s so many sweet + savoury goods left over and they just get thrown away. It used to be allowed that you could just take them home but that got banned for…no particular reason. The managers at the place I work are really nice but I guess they’re sticklers for the rules as they don’t ignore it-which I don’t blame as apparently the loss prevention team already installed a secret camera in there (they came in overnight!) because people kept messing up the tills and they think people are stealing money. Plus I guess if they don’t get enough food waste they get suspicious. It’s a load of shit…
You wouldn’t download a functioning public transport network
Depends on the word!
I am a socialist and it is nice to be among socialists, put simply. I disagree with plenty of them on many issues but honestly I have not found people rude or mean to me-indeed, even less so than on liberal forums e.g., reddit. Plus there is an energetic solidarity and support for marginalised ppl (I am disabled + poor + mentally ill) that you do not get in most communities because I feel they understand more so the structural roots behind these marginalisations (since they are socialists!).
Also I was on hexbear since the start (the migration from /r/cth to chapo.chat) and I don’t really know what Lemmy is lol.