But man, you really think Russia invaded because of a “land grab”? Does that make any sense to you?
I mean, how many wars have Russians started in the past for access to a warm water port? Shit, how many times have they fought over just the Crimea? Access to the black sea has been one of the most strategically important national goals for Russia throughout history.
What, all of them, unanimously, assembling their bodies into a single collossal humanoid mass of flesh and bone? This is the problem with a nationalist worldview, you miss the actual dynamic driving the event. Which Russians?
This is the problem with a nationalist worldview, you miss the actual dynamic driving the event. Which Russians?
The actual dynamic driving the event is the same for whatever government is controlling the modern states territory… the whole point of historic materialism is to view the inherent motive behind the actions of state.
Whatever government controls Russia has the same material needs as governments in the past. They require access to trade routes and logistics wether they are soviets, federations, or imperial.
Then why are you talking about it in the same terms as naive nationalists who don’t know materialism? It’s some really sus shit to proclaim to know all this but then make zero effort to differentiate your rhetoric from the “inherently authoritarian ruzzian orcs” crowd, continuing to frame it as though people who happen to be born in a certain socially constructed polity are somehow inherently a problem, while arguing pretty unmaterialistically that Russians (not the Russian Federation, just Russians gestures vaguely) started the conflict in Ukraine rather than joining a conflict that had been ongoing for nearly a decade. I’m not saying you’re not a materialist, but I am saying i detect latent nationalist brainworms.
Then why are you talking about it in the same terms as naive nationalists who don’t know materialism?
I don’t know what you’re talking about? All I said was that the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
continuing to frame it as though people who happen to be born in a certain socially constructed polity are somehow inherently a problem, while arguing pretty unmaterialistically that Russians (not the Russian Federation, just Russians
Lol, that’s quite the assumption to jump to based on the use of “Russians”. Do you get as pedantic if I were to say “the Americans benefited from chattel slavery”
started the conflict in Ukraine rather than joining a conflict that had been ongoing for nearly a decade. I’m not saying you’re not a materialist, but I am saying i detect latent nationalist brainworms.
A conflict they’ve been perpetuating for nearly a decade… you are the one trying to interpret the situation through a nationalistic lense. You’re literally aping the nationalistic justification for the imperial expansion of a capitalist nation.
Forget about the nationalistic dressing and actually apply some leftist theory… why does the west support Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe? Why does the US support Turkey, a state run by man who’s trying to turn it into a Islamic theocracy?
It’s all to control access to the black sea, the same reason the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
Do you get as pedantic if I were to say “the Americans benefited from chattel slavery”
Not the person you replied to, but I’d like to jump in on that question. Yes, we should be; do you think Black Americans benefited in any way from slavery?
Yes, we should be; do you think Black Americans benefited in any way from slavery?
Again, this is a semantic dispute. Saying that black Americans did not benefit from slavery, doesn’t mean that America itself didn’t benefit from slavery.
You are reaching for an argument I obviously wasn’t trying to make.
Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex.
— Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (1980)
When you frame your arguments in this nationalist way, you’re concealing these conflicts of interest. It would be clearer if you frame it in a way that specifies exactly who you mean.
Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex.
How does any of this pertain to my claims about historical conflicts over warm water ports?
When you frame your arguments in this nationalist way, you’re concealing these conflicts of interest. It would be clearer if you frame it in a way that specifies exactly who you mean.
Right, but I never claimed to be framing it in a nationalistic way, that’s just how you’re interpreting it. Given that I was talking about the history of Crimea, it would imply we are talking about a timeframe that reaches back to the Russian empire. In the given context, saying Russia has always needed access to warm weather ports is obviously referring to the governments in control of Russia.
You didn’t say “America” though, you said “the Americans”:
Do you get as pedantic if I were to say “the Americans benefited from chattel slavery”
Versus
Saying that black Americans did not benefit from slavery, doesn’t mean that America itself didn’t benefit from slavery.
You had to change your language from the American people to the American state in order to be able to claim that people are putting words in your mouth because they’re not doing that and you conflate people and states all over this thread.
The thing people are trying to get you to not do is conflate people and states because that kind of rhetoric is inherently nationalistic and invites belief in a unified immutable polity where none exists.
you to not do is conflate people and states because that kind of rhetoric is inherently nationalistic and invites belief in a unified immutable polity where none exists.
Maybe if you take it out of the given context… I was talking about the history of conflicts over warm water ports. Which spans back to the Russian empire. Given that context i think it’s a bit obtuse to believe I would be saying the Russian people have a incredible yearning for warm water ports. It’s fair obvious I was talking about controlling arm of the Russian state. Especially considering the Russian empire was a true monarchical government and didn’t take input from the Russian people.
Lol, going to be interesting to see how you justify your interpretation “war started”…
Okay I’ll bite. For the soviets, let’s go for when Stalin and Hitler buddied up an invaded Poland together, or we could go with the Afghan war, pick your poison…
And for the federation, let’s go with the first Chechen war.
The USSR was invited by the government of Afghanistan to defend it against US-funded Mujahideen. It did not “start” the war in Afghanistan in any sense of the word.
The first Chechen War was a civil war within Russia between the government and separatists. I won’t defend Yeltsin’s government, but I don’t see how Russia started the conflict.
Why were they “forced”? Poland was not part of their country, they had no reason to be forced into killing polish people. They decided to divide it and ally with the nazi.
The USSR was invited by the government of Afghanistan to defend it against US-funded Mujahideen. It did not “start” the war in Afghanistan in any sense of the word.
Lol, ahh yes Hafizullah Amin invited the spetznaz and kgb to the palace to assassinate him. You’re talking about Babrak Karmal, who invited them, but that was already after the soviets had deposed the last leader in storm-333.
The first Chechen War was a civil war within Russia between the government and separatists.
Lol, didn’t expect that amount of nationalistic language to come from a supposed leftist. Chechnya is only Russian by de jure, it’s a colonial holding from the Russian empire.
Again, it’s interesting to see you define “started the conflict”. Does a country not have a right to self determination? Didn’t Lenin say that the workers should be able to determine their own future? Is declaring independence from a historically abusive colonizer an act of war? Or is responding to a declaration of Independence with hard power when the war begins… you can’t have it both ways.
you fucking dumb antisemitic piece of shit, Poland was occupied by the Nazis and was massacring Jews and other minorities. the USSR intervened to protect people and give themeselves buffer space for the future Nazi invasion of russia. If you are aiding Nazis your ‘self determination’ is less than worthless. A shitload of Polish citizens sought refuge in the USSR and a shitload more fought on their side against the Nazi collaborators. Literally look at the citations of the WIkipedia page for the occupation of poland, they cite Tadeusz Piotrowski constantly, who on his own wikipedia page is said to be regurgitating Polish nationalist right wing propaganda.
Piotr Wróbel considers Piotrowski’s works to be “highly polemical and controversial”, similar to those by Richard C. Lukas and Marek Jan Chodakiewicz.[5] According to Ukrainian historian Andrii Bolianovskyi, Piotrowski’s studies on the Ukrainian-Polish ethnic conflicts rely unilaterally on the way they were conceived and presented by Polish right-wing politicians and the underground press during World War II.[6]
America hired and funded right wing and Nazi propaganda immediately after world war 2 to push “double genocide” narratives exactly like yours. You are ignorantly repeating debunked Nazi propaganda.
Poland was occupied by the Nazis and was massacring Jews and other minorities.
Yes, the ally of the Soviets were massacring Jews. Which the Soviet Union really didn’t care about. They were completely fine with having the nkvd massacre polish officers, which a significant part of were Jewish. The whole reason Poland has such a high Jewish population was because a lot of them had already fled pogroms in Germany and the very early Soviet Union.
If you are aiding Nazis your ‘self determination’ is less than worthless
Lol, except when It was the soviets?
“Germany and the Soviet Union entered an intricate trade pact on 11 February 1940 that was over four times larger than the one that the two countries had signed in August 1939.[219] The new trade pact helped Germany surmount a British blockade.[219] In the first year, Germany received one million tons of cereals, half-a-million tons of wheat, 900,000 tons of oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of phosphates and considerable amounts of other vital raw materials, along with the transit of one million tons of soybeans from Manchuria. Those and other supplies were being transported through Soviet and occupied Polish territories.[219] The Soviets were to receive a naval cruiser, the plans to the battleship Bismarck, heavy naval guns, other naval gear and 30 of Germany’s latest warplanes, including the Bf 109 and Bf 110 fighters and Ju 88 bomber.[219] The Soviets would also receive oil and electric equipment, locomotives, turbines, generators, diesel engines, ships, machine tools, and samples of German artillery, tanks, explosives, chemical-warfare equipment, and other items.[219]”
A shitload of Polish citizens sought refuge in the USSR and a shitload more fought on their side against the Nazi collaborators.
And tons were forcibly removed to gulags. It’s almost like there were multitudes of different opinions and causes in Poland at the time…
America hired and funded right wing and Nazi propaganda immediately after world war 2
And the soviets took in zero Nazis, or ever propagandized their partnership with the nazi?
“double genocide” narratives exactly like yours. You are ignorantly repeating debunked Nazi propaganda.
When did I say anything about a double genocide? My claim was that the soviets invaded Poland with their Nazi allies.
It’s hilarious that you say I’m repeating debunked propaganda when you won’t eve acknowledge that the soviets and nazi were once allies.
the fucking nazis were literally racist against slavic people, they did not take prisoners during their invasions, they sent them to death camps. to suggest that the soviets and the nazis were allies is patently absurd, their ideologies are diametrically opposed and you can do literally any cursory research to confirm the opinions of the people involved. literally read anything the nazis wrote about the soviets at the time, or anything the soviets wrote about the nazis. other users have already provided the context for those agreements, which you ignore. The soviets had tried to establish treaties with the allies before the molotov-ribbentrop pact, which they refused. it was an act of desperation to give the USSR time to establish military production factories and supply lines before the war. to spin that into an alliance is simply irresponsible historiography.
I mean, how many wars have Russians started in the past for access to a warm water port? Shit, how many times have they fought over just the Crimea? Access to the black sea has been one of the most strategically important national goals for Russia throughout history.
Not the dreaded warm water port discussion. When will we ever grow as a society?
Honestly, give climate change another 30-40 years and it prob won’t be an issue you hear about ever again.
What, all of them, unanimously, assembling their bodies into a single collossal humanoid mass of flesh and bone? This is the problem with a nationalist worldview, you miss the actual dynamic driving the event. Which Russians?
The actual dynamic driving the event is the same for whatever government is controlling the modern states territory… the whole point of historic materialism is to view the inherent motive behind the actions of state.
Whatever government controls Russia has the same material needs as governments in the past. They require access to trade routes and logistics wether they are soviets, federations, or imperial.
Then why are you talking about it in the same terms as naive nationalists who don’t know materialism? It’s some really sus shit to proclaim to know all this but then make zero effort to differentiate your rhetoric from the “inherently authoritarian ruzzian orcs” crowd, continuing to frame it as though people who happen to be born in a certain socially constructed polity are somehow inherently a problem, while arguing pretty unmaterialistically that Russians (not the Russian Federation, just Russians gestures vaguely) started the conflict in Ukraine rather than joining a conflict that had been ongoing for nearly a decade. I’m not saying you’re not a materialist, but I am saying i detect latent nationalist brainworms.
I don’t know what you’re talking about? All I said was that the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
Lol, that’s quite the assumption to jump to based on the use of “Russians”. Do you get as pedantic if I were to say “the Americans benefited from chattel slavery”
A conflict they’ve been perpetuating for nearly a decade… you are the one trying to interpret the situation through a nationalistic lense. You’re literally aping the nationalistic justification for the imperial expansion of a capitalist nation.
Forget about the nationalistic dressing and actually apply some leftist theory… why does the west support Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe? Why does the US support Turkey, a state run by man who’s trying to turn it into a Islamic theocracy?
It’s all to control access to the black sea, the same reason the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
Not the person you replied to, but I’d like to jump in on that question. Yes, we should be; do you think Black Americans benefited in any way from slavery?
Again, this is a semantic dispute. Saying that black Americans did not benefit from slavery, doesn’t mean that America itself didn’t benefit from slavery.
You are reaching for an argument I obviously wasn’t trying to make.
My point is perhaps best expressed as follows:
— Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (1980)
When you frame your arguments in this nationalist way, you’re concealing these conflicts of interest. It would be clearer if you frame it in a way that specifies exactly who you mean.
How does any of this pertain to my claims about historical conflicts over warm water ports?
Right, but I never claimed to be framing it in a nationalistic way, that’s just how you’re interpreting it. Given that I was talking about the history of Crimea, it would imply we are talking about a timeframe that reaches back to the Russian empire. In the given context, saying Russia has always needed access to warm weather ports is obviously referring to the governments in control of Russia.
You didn’t say “America” though, you said “the Americans”:
Versus
You had to change your language from the American people to the American state in order to be able to claim that people are putting words in your mouth because they’re not doing that and you conflate people and states all over this thread.
The thing people are trying to get you to not do is conflate people and states because that kind of rhetoric is inherently nationalistic and invites belief in a unified immutable polity where none exists.
Maybe if you take it out of the given context… I was talking about the history of conflicts over warm water ports. Which spans back to the Russian empire. Given that context i think it’s a bit obtuse to believe I would be saying the Russian people have a incredible yearning for warm water ports. It’s fair obvious I was talking about controlling arm of the Russian state. Especially considering the Russian empire was a true monarchical government and didn’t take input from the Russian people.
“Access to infrastructure that allows the movement of critical goods” isn’t really captured by the phrase “land grab”
please name one (1) war started by the Russian Federation or the USSR
Lol, going to be interesting to see how you justify your interpretation “war started”…
Okay I’ll bite. For the soviets, let’s go for when Stalin and Hitler buddied up an invaded Poland together, or we could go with the Afghan war, pick your poison…
And for the federation, let’s go with the first Chechen war.
Why were they “forced”? Poland was not part of their country, they had no reason to be forced into killing polish people. They decided to divide it and ally with the nazi.
Lol, ahh yes Hafizullah Amin invited the spetznaz and kgb to the palace to assassinate him. You’re talking about Babrak Karmal, who invited them, but that was already after the soviets had deposed the last leader in storm-333.
Lol, didn’t expect that amount of nationalistic language to come from a supposed leftist. Chechnya is only Russian by de jure, it’s a colonial holding from the Russian empire.
Again, it’s interesting to see you define “started the conflict”. Does a country not have a right to self determination? Didn’t Lenin say that the workers should be able to determine their own future? Is declaring independence from a historically abusive colonizer an act of war? Or is responding to a declaration of Independence with hard power when the war begins… you can’t have it both ways.
you fucking dumb antisemitic piece of shit, Poland was occupied by the Nazis and was massacring Jews and other minorities. the USSR intervened to protect people and give themeselves buffer space for the future Nazi invasion of russia. If you are aiding Nazis your ‘self determination’ is less than worthless. A shitload of Polish citizens sought refuge in the USSR and a shitload more fought on their side against the Nazi collaborators. Literally look at the citations of the WIkipedia page for the occupation of poland, they cite Tadeusz Piotrowski constantly, who on his own wikipedia page is said to be regurgitating Polish nationalist right wing propaganda.
America hired and funded right wing and Nazi propaganda immediately after world war 2 to push “double genocide” narratives exactly like yours. You are ignorantly repeating debunked Nazi propaganda.
Yes, the ally of the Soviets were massacring Jews. Which the Soviet Union really didn’t care about. They were completely fine with having the nkvd massacre polish officers, which a significant part of were Jewish. The whole reason Poland has such a high Jewish population was because a lot of them had already fled pogroms in Germany and the very early Soviet Union.
Lol, except when It was the soviets?
“Germany and the Soviet Union entered an intricate trade pact on 11 February 1940 that was over four times larger than the one that the two countries had signed in August 1939.[219] The new trade pact helped Germany surmount a British blockade.[219] In the first year, Germany received one million tons of cereals, half-a-million tons of wheat, 900,000 tons of oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of phosphates and considerable amounts of other vital raw materials, along with the transit of one million tons of soybeans from Manchuria. Those and other supplies were being transported through Soviet and occupied Polish territories.[219] The Soviets were to receive a naval cruiser, the plans to the battleship Bismarck, heavy naval guns, other naval gear and 30 of Germany’s latest warplanes, including the Bf 109 and Bf 110 fighters and Ju 88 bomber.[219] The Soviets would also receive oil and electric equipment, locomotives, turbines, generators, diesel engines, ships, machine tools, and samples of German artillery, tanks, explosives, chemical-warfare equipment, and other items.[219]”
And tons were forcibly removed to gulags. It’s almost like there were multitudes of different opinions and causes in Poland at the time…
And the soviets took in zero Nazis, or ever propagandized their partnership with the nazi?
When did I say anything about a double genocide? My claim was that the soviets invaded Poland with their Nazi allies.
It’s hilarious that you say I’m repeating debunked propaganda when you won’t eve acknowledge that the soviets and nazi were once allies.
the fucking nazis were literally racist against slavic people, they did not take prisoners during their invasions, they sent them to death camps. to suggest that the soviets and the nazis were allies is patently absurd, their ideologies are diametrically opposed and you can do literally any cursory research to confirm the opinions of the people involved. literally read anything the nazis wrote about the soviets at the time, or anything the soviets wrote about the nazis. other users have already provided the context for those agreements, which you ignore. The soviets had tried to establish treaties with the allies before the molotov-ribbentrop pact, which they refused. it was an act of desperation to give the USSR time to establish military production factories and supply lines before the war. to spin that into an alliance is simply irresponsible historiography.