Skip Navigation
doomer @hexbear.net
ColombianLenin [he/him] @hexbear.net

I feel optimistic regarding China and Russia in their conflicts against the US, but I'm very concerned and a bit doomer towards Palestine :(

Time is on the side of the Russians in Ukraine and the Chinese on pretty much anything else when it comes to confronting the US empire.

But ever since the ceasefire in Lebanon and the fall of Assad I can't help but feel that the Palestinian cause is getting worse every day. No one is lifting a finger for them except the Yemenis and it only seems that the Zionist fucks are getting closer to their objectives.

Civil war in "Israel" when? True Promise 3 when (lol)?

It doesn't help that some of the loudest voices cheering for Assad's fall where Palestinians and that sectarism is strong against Shia's...

Show Context
133 comments

  • You are swallowing a narrative

    With respect, I am not. My stances on the imperialist project in basically every other sphere (especially the Middle East and Sputh America) are incredibly skeptical and critical.

    But what appears to be confusing everyone is I choose to apply those same standards and lenses to everyone

    Yes, you actually should understand the context of this war, even if that means that Russian atrocities are also going to be put in context and complicate your feelings about it.

    Exactly, thank you. I think the "if the USA is involved its always the invading force" bothers me so much because it wipes away that cognitive dissonance with delusional dogma.

    If your position is to sit by the sidelines and condemn any state actor because states are oppressive/expansionist/monstrous then you've maintained a moral high ground that you've eliminated any chance to turn into a project for actually advancing a political goal.

    I assume this is a hypothetical "if your position is" and not an accusation, because I totally agree.

    I do not sit on the sidelines, Ukraine has a full and complete right to defend itself. (As does Palestine, as does (did) Hong Kong, as does any sovereign nation who is not the aggressors and who's boldest demand is a return to previously agreed upon boundaries from before the invasion.

    The Western imperialist bloc must be stopped. That requires the cooperation of everyone in the world that understands the true nature of imperialism to contribute in the struggle against imperialism.

    We remarkably agree on the premises here. It's surprising to me we go so opposite to each other.

    When I look at the Russian Ologarchs and all the people falling out of windows and that they all have bank accounts in the same offshore places that Western bourgeois were showing up.

    If you are open heartedly telling me that Putins Russia is an ally on eliminating inequality and distributing capital back to the producers then I don't get where that is coming from.

    When Mao fought against the Japanese imperialists alongside Chiang Kai Shek, he had to make a moral compromise that was necessary to actually achieve the goal, to liberate China. Modern day anti-imperialists are no different.

    China and Russia are highly different beasts.

    Is it your genuinely held belief that Putin is making the right compromises in the right places to liberate Russia?

    Setting aside Russia's moral right to the invasion, let's look at their economy since. It's tanked! Are you really suggesting that the Ukraine war was a strategically sound idea?

    • Exactly, thank you. I think the "if the USA is involved its always the invading force" bothers me so much because it wipes away that cognitive dissonance with delusional dogma.

      The reason I agreed with that comment is because, even though it's not absolutely true and as you correctly point out, it leads to a dogmatic and oversimplified view of history, it actually is correct in the current conjuncture. The US is the sole world hegemon. It is the culmination of imperialism, a monopoly power that holds complete financial dominance on the world stage. 80% of international financial transactions are in dollars. In the broad arc of history, US financial and military hegemony (which are in direct contact and dependence with each other) is currently the motive force of world history. Not an atom moves in the international stage without the US having somehow put it into motion because the US is world hegemon, that's what world hegemony means.

      Read back to the Leninist definition of imperialism.

      If you are open heartedly telling me that Putins Russia is an ally on eliminating inequality and distributing capital back to the producers then I don't get where that is coming from.

      They obviously aren't allies in the strategic goal of the left, to defeat capitalism and institute socialism. But they are tactical allies in demolishing the hegemonic power of Western finance capital, yes. The individual capitalists behave as individual capitalists always do, protecting their financial interests in the short term. But the actual motive forces of the Russian national interest lies, momentarily, in the same direction as the interests of the global working class: in the fight against imperialism.

      Ultimately the reason I'm completely opposite to you, despite having a lot of the same principles (which I respect you for, you're miles ahead of the vast majority of liberals) is because to me, imperialism is a historical phenomenon that exists within the context of the material relations between the ruling classes and the working classes. I'm thinking the USD, US treasuries, international debt owed to the US, the IMF, World Bank, etc. Meanwhile it appears that your definition of imperialism is something a lot more metaphysical and general, that I would argue is actually fruitless to fight against without identifying that expansionist tendencies are inherent to the nation-state.

      Setting aside Russia's moral right to the invasion, let's look at their economy since. It's tanked! Are you really suggesting that the Ukraine war was a strategically sound idea?

      Absolutely. The alternative was to allow Ukraine to join NATO and continue being encircled by hostile fascist governments (see Georgia coup, baltic states, etc). When the threat is existential, sacrificing economic stability in exchange for continuing to exist is a sound decision.

      Also, and I don't think Putin had this in mind, it turned out to be a good idea to decouple from the world economy which was about to be completely trashed by Trump in 3 years after the invasion. Funny how that worked out.

    • I do not sit on the sidelines, Ukraine has a full and complete right to defend itself. (As does Palestine, as does (did) Hong Kong, as does any sovereign nation who is not the aggressors and who’s boldest demand is a return to previously agreed upon boundaries from before the invasion.

      Did Russia have a right to defend itself against being completely surrounded by an adversarial military alliance? They had warned the West for years that they would never allow that to happen, but the West kept pushing it despite earlier "promises" not to do so. The West didn't care because they're willing to fight to the last Ukrainian for their own gain. Had Ukraine chosen to be neutral and said "no, thanks" to NATO, they wouldn't have been invaded.

      You're not distinguishing between a truly imperialist country that invades other countries completely unprovoked (see US invasion of Iraq for just one recent example) versus a country that invades another purely as a defensive, strategic move (Russia -> Ukraine/Georgia).

      Aside from that, saying that Ukraine has a full and complete right to defend itself makes sense only in an ideal world, but not in a real world where it is placed right next door to an 800 pound gorilla. Would Canada or Mexico be completely within their rights to join a full military alliance with Russia and/or China? Absolutely. Would there be a positive outcome for their country and its citizens if they tried? Absolutely not. In a situation like that, neutrality or even outright support for the gorilla next door is the completely rational approach to take.

      Edit: minor changes to one sentence in the last paragraph.

      • Did Russia have a right to defend itself against being completely surrounded by an adversarial military alliance?

        I'm confused what "completely surrounded" means here? Have you looked at a map of Russia in comparison to NATO countries?

        It's barely touched by NATO countries, they're only to the west and completely untouched with Mongolia/Khazakstan to the south and Asia to the east.

        But absolutely it did! Assuming hypothetically it was being surrounded it had as much right to join or leave defensive alliances as they do.

        Bring back the Warsaw Pact if they want. You just don't invade another country.

        And if one of those countries had dared to cross over the Russian border in invasion, it had a right to defend itself from that invasion.

        They had warned the West for years that they would never allow that to happen, but the West kept pushing it despite earlier "promises" not to do so. The West didn't care because they're willing to fight to the last Ukrainian for their own gain. Had Ukraine chosen to be neutral and said "no, thanks" to NATO, they wouldn't have been invaded.

        Interesting justification.

        How many times do I have to warn my neighbor I don't like their new security system before its okay to just take their house?

        You're not distinguishing between a truly imperialist country that invades other countries completely unprovoked (see US invasion of Iraq for just one recent example) versus a country that invades another purely as a defensive, strategic move (Russia -> Ukraine/Georgia).

        You're right. Invasion is not a defensive move.

        Would Canada or Mexico be completely within their rights to join a full military alliance with Russia and/or China? Absolutely.

        Agreed.

        Would there be a positive outcome for their country and its citizens if they tried? Absolutely not. In a situation like that, neutrality or even outright support for the gorilla next door is the completely rational approach to take.

        As a Canadian, I completely disagree. I'd really like some help with the 800 pound gorilla next door.

        I support closer ties with China, but not Russia personally.

        • I’m confused what “completely surrounded” means here? Have you looked at a map of Russia in comparison to NATO countries?

          I admit that was a thoughtless word to throw in there, so let's instead say that very roughly speaking the land border of their population center was about half composed of NATO countries, and Ukraine and Georgia joining would essentially double that in terms of border length.

          How many times do I have to warn my neighbor I don’t like their new security system before its okay to just take their house?

          That's not a good analogy. NATO membership brings with it US military bases and/or missile launchers, possibly nuclear ones. A better analogy would be "how many times do I have to warn my neighbor that I will not allow them to stockpile [edit: even more] weapons in their house and point even more of them at my house before I bust in there and take away their weapons?"

          As a Canadian, I completely disagree. I’d really like some help with the 800 pound gorilla next door.

          I completely understand the sentiment, but how large a percentage of the population of your country would you be willing to sacrifice to (most likely unsuccessfully) assert that right?

          Edit: overall, it seems to me that you seriously underestimate the existential threat that NATO represents for Russia.

          • instead say that very roughly speaking the land border of their population center was about half composed of NATO countries, and Ukraine and Georgia joining would essentially double that in terms of border length.

            That's fair, you are of course right it's a very important border.

            That's not a good analogy. NATO membership brings with it US military bases and/or missile launchers, possibly nuclear ones. A better analogy would be "how many times do I have to warn my neighbor that I will not allow them to stockpile [edit: even more] weapons in their house and point even more of them at my house before I bust in there and take away their weapons?"

            Sure. The answer is still "you don't get to take your neighbors house".

            What I really don't like about this is everyone is justified to invade everybody.

            If Russia can invade Ukraine, the Ukraine must equally be able to now "defensively invade" also.

            So we just never sow for peace when theres tension, the strategy is to invade back and forth forever, with everyone justified by all the previous invasions?

            I completely understand the sentiment, but how large a percentage of the population of your country would you be willing to sacrifice to (most likely unsuccessfully) assert that right?

            I don't have the authority to sacrifice anyone.

            I am one voice in a democracy and if my fellow Canadians choose to sacrifice themselves for our country I hope I'm not too much of a coward to not be with them through whatever that means.

            The only sacrifice I'm in charge of making is my own, and to that I just don't know. I've never been tested like that.

            Edit: overall, it seems to me that you seriously underestimate the existential threat that NATO represents for Russia.

            There are plenty of "threats" out there. If suggest we start invading each other over each one then I think you overestimate the effectiveness of starting wars.

            • Sure. The answer is still “you don’t get to take your neighbors house”.

              What I really don’t like about this is everyone is justified to invade everybody.

              If Russia can invade Ukraine, the Ukraine must equally be able to now “defensively invade” also.

              So we just never sow for peace when theres tension, the strategy is to invade back and forth forever, with everyone justified by all the previous invasions?

              Again, I completely understand the sentiment. I am very antiwar myself and would much prefer if countries were all peaceful toward each other. The thing is, going back to my analogy, in a world without a police force that can take care of it for you, at some point you need to take action to defend yourself if your neighbor is seriously threatening you. I can certainly understand someone deciding to take aggressive action to get a situation like that under control before they get killed. This is not a blanket license for everyone to invade each other, but only a limited license to act in self-defense.

              The real situation is even worse, by the way. It's as if half your immediate neighbors on one side of your house were part of an "anti-you" coalition and had guns pointed at your house, then one more neighbor on that side had through a questionable process decided to join that coalition and place more guns pointed at your house.

              I don’t have the authority to sacrifice anyone.

              I am one voice in a democracy and if my fellow Canadians choose to sacrifice themselves for our country I hope I’m not too much of a coward to not be with them through whatever that means.

              The only sacrifice I’m in charge of making is my own, and to that I just don’t know. I’ve never been tested like that.

              I understand that. It was more a rhetorical question and a general "you".

              There are plenty of “threats” out there. If suggest we start invading each other over each one then I think you overestimate the effectiveness of starting wars.

              Some threats are much more concrete and serious than others. Sure, wars are always unpredictable by nature and should only be used in very, very limited circumstances. I would very much have preferred that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, but I understand their reasons for doing so, especially when they had been warning about it and explaining their rationale for years.

        • How many times do I have to warn my neighbor I don’t like their new security system before its okay to just take their house?

          in this instance your neighbor's security system is a 40mm cannon aimed at your front door

    • Look at history. Usa hasn't been invaded yet. Usa has been in thousands of conflicts. Either they stoked the conflict, or they were directly the aggressors. They are ALWAYS at fault. And if it wasn't them, it was their lackeys. And where do lackeys get their orders from? From usa of course.

133 comments