2d ago

"Violence is never the answer" unless it is white people doing it

Memes @lemmygrad.ml

Spectre @lemmy.ml

2d ago

96 comments

Redditors please consult the chart:
- hmm... And why would you say supporting Russia and Palestine count has "understanding geopolitics"? I say this as someone who does not know too much about it.
  
  Both work against US Imperial Hegemony. Palestinian liberation is fully supported as it's a national liberation movement for people subjected to settler-colonial genocide, critical support for Russia is due to it currently working against US dominance, which is the primary obstacle for Humanity to progress economically into a more equitable global system.
  
  Both Palestine and Russia are on the western "to be conquered"-list. The difference that Russia can muster enough military power to directly oppose those plans. Palestine is in amuch worse position. Both however, are support worthy because of their place on that list.
  
  Question: If Trump reverses the direction of US foreign policy, and starts openly seeking for Ukraine to be conquered and have its resources and land taken by Russia and the US, would it become support worthy because of its place on that list?
  How about Canada? If he starts trying to conquer Canada (not that I think he would, I think it is pure posturing) would it then start needing Lemmygrad's support?
  
  That would make both states just two more puppet states the US eventually shot in the head. At no point did these states oppose the US empire, they were just good lapdogs until daddy US took them behind the shed and put a bullet to their head.
  
  I want to ask about how strongly Russia's economy is doing, and how they are rising and NATO is falling apart and the EU is going to all crumble and freeze in the dark with no fossil fuels while Russia stands strong, and how that all ties in with this whole theory, but I have lost interest.
  I wish you luck with your geopolitical theories. Y'all are weird.
  
  Well, you deserve an answer regarding your economic question for the way. Russias economy is doing pretty well, its government used the time from 2014 onwards to create alternatives to western markets. For example gas and oil go to India(who resells some to the EU) and China now. And the US who, of course, does not comply with the sanctions. Another factor of Russias resilience to western sanctions is the historical fact that the west sanctions non-western countries all the time. This created a situation in which most of the world is under western sanctions of varous kinds, the sanctioned countries are less inclined to follow western dictates regarding Russia. So Russia still can trade with most of the world.
  Meanwhile Europe did expect to get cheap gas as always no matter how much it antagonized Russia. Unfortunately for them, Russia did not renew the delivery contract it had with the EU countries(which would guarantee delivery for a pre-settled price). Leading to the EU having to buy Russian gas on the spot market (highly variable prices). Some EU countries did not antagonize Russia as much, and thus had their contract renewed, thney got fucked another way by big daddy Washington. With the US blowing up Northstream 2 and Ukraine stopping transit over its territory, the EU is physically cut off from Russian gas and and has to find alternatives fast.
  One adress was Qatar, who can not cover the demand. Another was the US, who can but wants multiple times what Russia demanded. Furthermore, in either case the delivery would happen in liquified form. Which is ecologically problematic to say the least.
  Liquidification requires lots of energie and produces a shitload of CO2 emissions. Driving it over by special ships (of which not enough exist) again pumps lots of CO2 out and poisons the oceans because the large ship machines are using the absolute worst for fuel. That stuff then has to get on land, sufficient terminals only existed in Spain, in Germany they had to be built ignoring safety standards, because they were needed asap. The US gas is extracted from shale, as a side effect of shale oil extraction. This process poisons the land and water, leading to tab water being flamable in many parts of the US.
  Overall this means rising energy costs in the west, which means less favourable conditions of energy intensive companies. The US solves that way by pulling all restrictions regarding shale oil extraction, digging up Alaska and so on and providing tax incentives for companies moving to the US - in short: They loot their vassal states in Europe.
  Europe is fucked. Which, of course, leads to tensions within NATO. Especially as the US wants the euros to shoulder the cost of their occupation now, too. Teh EU countries have already been weakened by austerity and neoliberal politics, now have to pump billions into their militaries. Said money is created via debt on one side, via further cuts on social services on the other, creating internal tensions. Said tensions can be observed by the rise of the far right in every EU country.
  Another reason for inter NATO and EU tensions is the fact that the countries in the Eu who did not antagonize Russia, now also are fucked. Because the US and it's ukranian dog blocked direct pipelines.
  So put together the situation, the EU got fucked by the US and its own stupidity, Ukraine got fucked by NATO, EU, US and its own stupidity, Russia got away cleanly, the US got away cleanly at the cost of its imperial periphery. Climate Change won big. Humanity lost big.
  "To be an enemy of the United States is risky, to be an ally is fatal."
  
  Posting to !asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml would likely get a lot of good answers.
  
  Or any other geopolitics ask community if you don't want extremely .grad replies.
  
  Noooo come to my shitlib chamber!!!!
- If you're describing Marxist-Leninists as being interchangeable with "tankies," and MLs are by far the most common form of Marxist and Socialist world-wide, what's the point in denoting the top-left quadrant as "Socialist/Anarchist?" Moreover, Anarchists are not a monolith, many don't support continuing the war.
  I think the original is more generous, anti-war-ism is genuinely a relatively positive way of putting it even if critical support for Russia is deemed to be "fully knowledgeable." The original fully acknowledges the principles of never striking first millitarily as a viewpoint with understandable moral basis, while also suggesting that that isn't the complete picture.
  
  I don't think you're accurately describing the reasons Russia invaded Ukraine, the material reality points more towards Russia wanting to thoroughly demillitarize Ukraine by any means necessary and certify Ukrainian neutrality with NATO, rather than joining it.
  As for standing for Socialism and the liberation of the working class, the majority of Marxists believe that the current largest obstacle in that path globally is the US Empire, and US Hegemony. Russia poses less of a threat to Socialism worldwide than the US by virtue of not having nearly the power of the US. I have no doubt that the Russian Federation would be just as exploitative of the Global South if they were in the same position as the US Empire, but they aren't, and instead their path to further profits relies on dethroning the US. This dethroning of the US is also necessary for Socialists, hence critical support insofar as it appears to be working against the US Empire.
  Let's consider the opposite viewpoint, though. What happens if Ukraine, against all odds, succeeds in beating back Russia, maintains millitarization, and joins NATO? Russia further weakens, and becomes folded into subjugation under the US Empire. This likely results in opening up of some of Russia's assets to foreign plundering, strengthens NATO (the US Empire's millitary wing, essentially), and thus also weakens the position of the Global South.
  What most Marxists support is a quick end to the war, via peace deals. The US continuing the war in order to shackle Ukraine with massive IMF loans and secure ownership of key resources and minerals stands in the way of that, and wishes to prolong the war so they can carve out as much value out of Ukraine as they can. Increasingly, Ukrainians themselves want the war to end, rather than sacrificing themselves for US profits, even if it means Russian victory. There is no actual path to victory for Ukraine without NATO full-on joining in, causing a catastrophic level of death and destruction.
  What should a Socialist side with, in this situation? Where is the path to the best possible outcome, in your opinion?
  
  le DAE campism! True marxism is being a useless western trot!

96 comments