Drafting your population when you have a foreign adversary dropping bombs on you is the right thing to do. It is known as self defence.
“Self”-defense? The state is not yourself, nor is it a person. Defending the state is defending the power, structure, and organization that exists in the country. Which is only a worthwhile endeavor if there is a significant difference for the average person between the two sides.
If a state is actually good, if it actually improves the quality of life of its people, then sure, it’s worth defending. Conversely, if a state is genuinely exterminationist, like the Nazis, then even a flawed, bourgeois state can be worth defending. But every major conflict since WWII, from Vietnam to Iraq, has had people trying to justify it by comparing the other side to Hitler and the Nazis, generally those comparisons are frivolous.
Ukraine and Russia are both capitalist states. What tangible difference will there be if one side winds up governing the disputed territory instead of the other? It’s just a question of what color flag they look at while they get exploited. Is that worth sending people at gunpoint into a meat grinder? Is it a leftist, progressive position to say that it is?
“Aggressor and defender” is just not a good framework for understanding any conflict. For example, during the Vietnam War, where the US was sending troops halfway around the globe to terrorize a bunch of poor rice farmers into submission so that they could keep exploiting them, they justified it by saying they were just “defending” the state of South Vietnam.
The same can be said of either side in Ukraine. The West is just “defending” the government which they hand-picked during Euromaidan, while Russia is just “defending” the separatist governments who requested their aid. It’s trivially easy to paint virtually any side in any conflict as merely “defending.” Even the Roman Empire, while they were expanding across Europe, often claimed that they were simply “defending their allies.” Look at an area you want to control, pick one side in that area to be your ally, wait for a conflict to break out, then use the excuse to move in, and the next thing you know you’ve conquered the known world, “defending” all the while.
In any case, I can’t say I’m particularly invested in upholding a status quo where my enemies are the ones on top. That’s their problem, not mine.
Your first sentence is a straw man and is just dishonest.
The second sentence would make Vladimir Putin proud. When as the great empire of Ukraine gained any ground over the lines drawn after the collapse of the USSR?
That’s their problem, not mine
That’s fair so long as bombs aren’t flying on your neighbours house.
The second sentence would make Vladimir Putin proud. When as the great empire of Ukraine gained any ground over the lines drawn after the collapse of the USSR?
“Great empire of Ukraine?” No, the empire is the US and NATO, obviously. Ukraine is simply the next prospective territory they want to expand into. And they did in fact gain significant ground after the collapse of the USSR.
That’s fair so long as bombs aren’t flying on your neighbours house.
Nope. Territorial integrity would still be the ruling class’s problem.
If that happened, I would be calling for surrender and trying to avoid the draft and help others to avoid it. Because I have absolutely no interest in fighting on the behalf of my oppressors to uphold their “right” to exploit me.
Again, why would I give a shit which flag my oppressors are waving?
Yes the US indeed has ulterior motives, whom I don’t agree with but they are not a defence only military and as such don’t apply to my initial statement of self defence.
NATO from what I’ve read has been picky about what constitutes as defence and invasion, that’s not to say that I by default agree with all of thier choices.
Territorial integrity definitely has a material impact to the populace ask Anne Frank.
Territorial integrity definitely has a material impact to the populace ask Anne Frank.
Again, I already said that it matters in cases where one side is exterminationist, like the Nazis. I also already pointed out that, literally every major conflict since WWII, people have tried to justify it by invoking the Nazis.
Examples
I remembered how each time that the democracies failed to act, it had encouraged the aggressors to keep going ahead. Communism was acting in Korea just as Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese had acted ten, fifteen and twenty years earlier…. If this was allowed to go unchallenged it would mean a third world war, just as similar incidents had brought on a second world war.
Truman on Korea
If I may refer again to history; we failed to halt Hirohito, Mussolini and Hitler by not acting in unity and in time. That marked the beginning of many years of stark tragedy and desperate peril. May it not be that our nations have learned something from that lesson?
Eisenhower on Vietnam
Nor would surrender in Vietnam bring peace, because we learned from Hitler at Munich that success only feeds the appetite of aggression. The battle would be renewed …bringing with it perhaps even larger and crueler conflict, as we learned from the lessons of history.
Johnson on Vietnam
We succeeded in the struggle for freedom in Europe because we and our allies remain stalwart. Keeping the peace in the Middle East will require no less. We’re beginning a new era. This new era can be full of promise, an age of freedom, a time of peace for all peoples. But if history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms. Appeasement does not work. As was the case in the 1930’s, we see in Saddam Hussein an aggressive dictator threatening his neighbors.
George H. W. Bush on Kuwait
We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions – by abandoning every value except the will to power – they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies
George W Bush on Afghanistan
The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.
George W Bush on Iraq
I think perhaps you’re not really understanding where I’m coming from, speaking as an American to a European.
When we asked the ruling class nicely to please give us healthcare, they called us commies and told us to go fuck ourselves with a rusty crowbar. When we asked them to stop murdering black people in the streets, they used tear gas against our peaceful demonstrations. When we asked them to stop actively arming a genocide, they violently suppressed us and tried to redefine words to make believing in human rights “racist.”
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not some naive idealist. They want to rule through violent suppression, because it works. It’s just business. They’re the ruling class, they want to rule over us with an iron fist, the fuck can we do about it? They have the most powerful military in the world. They got us by the nuts.
But if they then turn around and go, “Help us! Our empire’s under attack!Foreigners might get some valuable minerals on the other side of the planet that we’re trying to control! Won’t you please give us your support?” then I’m going to tell them that they can go fuck themselves with a rusty crowbar, just like they’re always telling me. Why on earth would I not? Am I expected to just forget that they’re constantly shitting on me? I don’t give a shit about their empire.
And so, your only choice is to try to invoke some boogeyman from 70 years ago to try to get us to fall in line. The same boogeyman that you have invoked, time and time again, across generations, to justify pouring endless blood and treasure into these pointless imperial persuits that have only ever benefitted the ruling class.
Meanwhile, your own side keeps doing things like applauding a Nazi soldier or engaging in Holocaust revisionism live on German TV. Meanwhile, Holocaust revisionism is becoming mainstream across Eastern Europe while the ruling class is asking themselves, “Hey, these people hate Russia and hate Socialism, so who cares what really happened 70 years ago?”
Yeah, I’m not buying it. The boogeyman wasn’t real any of those other times and it’s not real this time either.
To interject I’m really enjoying this conversation with you we’re mostly keeping things civil
While I obviously don’t have much knowledge on American history I can tell that an American ML’s opinion on even the word defence has other connotations to it.
On the other hand using said trauma as justification that military defence can not exist in other countries is an overreaction.
To interject I’m really enjoying this conversation with you we’re mostly keeping things civil
Thank you, and I do think that people jumped down your throat too quickly.
On the other hand using said trauma as justification that military defence can not exist in other countries is an overreaction.
As I said, it can exist if there’s an actual, material difference to the average person who wins, either because the state is doing things for the people, or because the alternative is exterminationist.
It’s not that I’m unsympathetic towards Ukrainians. If we could go back, say, 25 years ago, and give them a bunch of foreign aid to build schools and hospitals and things all across the country, I’d be fine with that (although I would also like us to build schools and hospitals here at home). Perhaps if we’d done that, there wouldn’t be any separatists, there wouldn’t be any need for Euromaidan, or banning opposition parties, or any of that. And then if Russia just attacked, then it’d be worth fighting for, and the people in the east would have believed in it more.
But nobody involved actually gives a shit about helping average, ordinary Ukrainians. They only want a chance to weaken Russia and expand their political and economic influence. This isn’t a fight over whether Ukrainians get to live in a nice little progressive social democracy. It’s a fight whether they will be an exploitative, capitalist state whose resources go east or west. That’s why it’s not a battle worth fighting.
There are countless countries in the world where our influence is slipping, due to neglect. They are where Ukraine was 25 years ago, where we have the option to solidify support through peaceful investment and actually improving people’s lives, where we could spend “an ounce of prevention instead of a pound of cure.” But we don’t do that. Pretty much the only time the US spends money on other countries is when it’s bombing them. Meanwhile, China invests both domestically and internationally, while steering clear of military entanglements, and that’s the reason it’s ascending on the world stage as the US is declining.
Even worse, there is a serious possibility in the US that the far-right will seize power to an even greater, and more permanent, way than what they’ve already done. And this is driven by economic conditions. It’s not just other countries that are being neglected. And the threat that the domestic far-right poses is not a boogeyman, it is very real threat that is exterminationist, and there is a serious possibility that they will win and throw me in a camp. In fact, it’s hard to see a way that they’ll lose. I am not the most informed about the conditions in Europe, but I know that far-right movements are growing in strength there as well. And one of the things they take advantage of, rhetorically, is that governments keep spending money on foreign conflicts instead of spending it domestically, which resonates with people who are struggling.
It is crucial to shift focus, both because it would do more to actually benefit people, and because it’s necessary to keep the far-right out of power. This is, again, especially true from an American perspective. People look at our country and see a backwards, capitalist hellscape, they see all our problems and think, “If that’s how people in the US are treated, how are we going to be treated if we align with them?” In fact, that’s exactly how I see things, when looking at Ukraine. If we’re not getting healthcare, you think they will? We have to get our shit in order at home, and the same holds true for any country with a growing far-right movement.
NATO from what I’ve read has been picky about what constitutes as defence and invasion, that’s not to say that I by default agree with all of thier choices.
Alright, go help Bill fuck his wife again by bombing Yugoslavia, then maybe invade Mali or something. You know, have fun with it. Control the financial policy of a bakers dozen African countries while you’re at it! As a hoot make them use the currency you dont even use anymore! Then bomb the fuck out of Libyas infrastructure and maybe some of Syrias if you feel like it
“Self”-defense? The state is not yourself, nor is it a person. Defending the state is defending the power, structure, and organization that exists in the country. Which is only a worthwhile endeavor if there is a significant difference for the average person between the two sides.
If a state is actually good, if it actually improves the quality of life of its people, then sure, it’s worth defending. Conversely, if a state is genuinely exterminationist, like the Nazis, then even a flawed, bourgeois state can be worth defending. But every major conflict since WWII, from Vietnam to Iraq, has had people trying to justify it by comparing the other side to Hitler and the Nazis, generally those comparisons are frivolous.
Ukraine and Russia are both capitalist states. What tangible difference will there be if one side winds up governing the disputed territory instead of the other? It’s just a question of what color flag they look at while they get exploited. Is that worth sending people at gunpoint into a meat grinder? Is it a leftist, progressive position to say that it is?
That is why I’m only defending the concept on the requirement that it is to defend your country not attack another.
The Japanese or Dutch self defence forces are different to the US or Russian invasion troops.
“Aggressor and defender” is just not a good framework for understanding any conflict. For example, during the Vietnam War, where the US was sending troops halfway around the globe to terrorize a bunch of poor rice farmers into submission so that they could keep exploiting them, they justified it by saying they were just “defending” the state of South Vietnam.
The same can be said of either side in Ukraine. The West is just “defending” the government which they hand-picked during Euromaidan, while Russia is just “defending” the separatist governments who requested their aid. It’s trivially easy to paint virtually any side in any conflict as merely “defending.” Even the Roman Empire, while they were expanding across Europe, often claimed that they were simply “defending their allies.” Look at an area you want to control, pick one side in that area to be your ally, wait for a conflict to break out, then use the excuse to move in, and the next thing you know you’ve conquered the known world, “defending” all the while.
In any case, I can’t say I’m particularly invested in upholding a status quo where my enemies are the ones on top. That’s their problem, not mine.
Your first sentence is a straw man and is just dishonest.
The second sentence would make Vladimir Putin proud. When as the great empire of Ukraine gained any ground over the lines drawn after the collapse of the USSR?
That’s fair so long as bombs aren’t flying on your neighbours house.
“Great empire of Ukraine?” No, the empire is the US and NATO, obviously. Ukraine is simply the next prospective territory they want to expand into. And they did in fact gain significant ground after the collapse of the USSR.
Nope. Territorial integrity would still be the ruling class’s problem.
If that happened, I would be calling for surrender and trying to avoid the draft and help others to avoid it. Because I have absolutely no interest in fighting on the behalf of my oppressors to uphold their “right” to exploit me.
Again, why would I give a shit which flag my oppressors are waving?
Yes the US indeed has ulterior motives, whom I don’t agree with but they are not a defence only military and as such don’t apply to my initial statement of self defence.
NATO from what I’ve read has been picky about what constitutes as defence and invasion, that’s not to say that I by default agree with all of thier choices.
Territorial integrity definitely has a material impact to the populace ask Anne Frank.
Again, I already said that it matters in cases where one side is exterminationist, like the Nazis. I also already pointed out that, literally every major conflict since WWII, people have tried to justify it by invoking the Nazis.
Examples
I think perhaps you’re not really understanding where I’m coming from, speaking as an American to a European.
When we asked the ruling class nicely to please give us healthcare, they called us commies and told us to go fuck ourselves with a rusty crowbar. When we asked them to stop murdering black people in the streets, they used tear gas against our peaceful demonstrations. When we asked them to stop actively arming a genocide, they violently suppressed us and tried to redefine words to make believing in human rights “racist.”
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not some naive idealist. They want to rule through violent suppression, because it works. It’s just business. They’re the ruling class, they want to rule over us with an iron fist, the fuck can we do about it? They have the most powerful military in the world. They got us by the nuts.
But if they then turn around and go, “Help us! Our empire’s under attack! Foreigners might get some valuable minerals on the other side of the planet that we’re trying to control! Won’t you please give us your support?” then I’m going to tell them that they can go fuck themselves with a rusty crowbar, just like they’re always telling me. Why on earth would I not? Am I expected to just forget that they’re constantly shitting on me? I don’t give a shit about their empire.
And so, your only choice is to try to invoke some boogeyman from 70 years ago to try to get us to fall in line. The same boogeyman that you have invoked, time and time again, across generations, to justify pouring endless blood and treasure into these pointless imperial persuits that have only ever benefitted the ruling class.
Meanwhile, your own side keeps doing things like applauding a Nazi soldier or engaging in Holocaust revisionism live on German TV. Meanwhile, Holocaust revisionism is becoming mainstream across Eastern Europe while the ruling class is asking themselves, “Hey, these people hate Russia and hate Socialism, so who cares what really happened 70 years ago?”
Yeah, I’m not buying it. The boogeyman wasn’t real any of those other times and it’s not real this time either.
To interject I’m really enjoying this conversation with you we’re mostly keeping things civil
While I obviously don’t have much knowledge on American history I can tell that an American ML’s opinion on even the word defence has other connotations to it.
On the other hand using said trauma as justification that military defence can not exist in other countries is an overreaction.
Thank you, and I do think that people jumped down your throat too quickly.
As I said, it can exist if there’s an actual, material difference to the average person who wins, either because the state is doing things for the people, or because the alternative is exterminationist.
It’s not that I’m unsympathetic towards Ukrainians. If we could go back, say, 25 years ago, and give them a bunch of foreign aid to build schools and hospitals and things all across the country, I’d be fine with that (although I would also like us to build schools and hospitals here at home). Perhaps if we’d done that, there wouldn’t be any separatists, there wouldn’t be any need for Euromaidan, or banning opposition parties, or any of that. And then if Russia just attacked, then it’d be worth fighting for, and the people in the east would have believed in it more.
But nobody involved actually gives a shit about helping average, ordinary Ukrainians. They only want a chance to weaken Russia and expand their political and economic influence. This isn’t a fight over whether Ukrainians get to live in a nice little progressive social democracy. It’s a fight whether they will be an exploitative, capitalist state whose resources go east or west. That’s why it’s not a battle worth fighting.
There are countless countries in the world where our influence is slipping, due to neglect. They are where Ukraine was 25 years ago, where we have the option to solidify support through peaceful investment and actually improving people’s lives, where we could spend “an ounce of prevention instead of a pound of cure.” But we don’t do that. Pretty much the only time the US spends money on other countries is when it’s bombing them. Meanwhile, China invests both domestically and internationally, while steering clear of military entanglements, and that’s the reason it’s ascending on the world stage as the US is declining.
Even worse, there is a serious possibility in the US that the far-right will seize power to an even greater, and more permanent, way than what they’ve already done. And this is driven by economic conditions. It’s not just other countries that are being neglected. And the threat that the domestic far-right poses is not a boogeyman, it is very real threat that is exterminationist, and there is a serious possibility that they will win and throw me in a camp. In fact, it’s hard to see a way that they’ll lose. I am not the most informed about the conditions in Europe, but I know that far-right movements are growing in strength there as well. And one of the things they take advantage of, rhetorically, is that governments keep spending money on foreign conflicts instead of spending it domestically, which resonates with people who are struggling.
It is crucial to shift focus, both because it would do more to actually benefit people, and because it’s necessary to keep the far-right out of power. This is, again, especially true from an American perspective. People look at our country and see a backwards, capitalist hellscape, they see all our problems and think, “If that’s how people in the US are treated, how are we going to be treated if we align with them?” In fact, that’s exactly how I see things, when looking at Ukraine. If we’re not getting healthcare, you think they will? We have to get our shit in order at home, and the same holds true for any country with a growing far-right movement.
Lol
Yes that’s what happens when you have opinions that aren’t based directly off of one person.
Alright, go help Bill fuck his wife again by bombing Yugoslavia, then maybe invade Mali or something. You know, have fun with it. Control the financial policy of a bakers dozen African countries while you’re at it! As a hoot make them use the currency you dont even use anymore! Then bomb the fuck out of Libyas infrastructure and maybe some of Syrias if you feel like it
Fuck off, no it isn’t. You just have no response to it so you’re pulling it the big list of reddit debate words to distract from that
You are so angry that a lemmy.ml mod removed your comment about hair.
“U mad!”
Can you even read? Or are you just deliberately ignoring what they said?
Are you following my account to get back at your mods for removing your hateful comment?
Are you going to fuck off yet?
Never!
So long