Russia's Invasion of Ukraine (Official Thread)
- Thread starter newarkhiphop
- Start date
so supporting the invaders is anti-war now. god damn, so the fukks that had signs like "get a brain morans" and "love it or leave it" when we had a problem with our invasion of iraq were on the right side of history and we were wrong.
look at this anti-war protester y'all.
look at this anti-war protester y'all.
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
We must stop letting Russia define the terms of the Ukraine crisis
Slavoj ŽižekA question like ‘Did US intelligence-sharing with Ukraine cross a line?’ forgets the fact that it was Russia that crossed the line – by invading Ukraine
Mon 23 May 2022 11.22 BST
In recent weeks, the western public has been obsessed with the question “What goes on in Putin’s mind?” Western pundits wonder: do the people around him tell him the whole truth? Is he ill or going insane? Are we pushing him into a corner where he will see no other way out to save face than to accelerate the conflict into a total war?
We should stop this obsession with the red line, this endless search for the right balance between support for Ukraine and avoiding total war. The “red line” is not an objective fact: Putin himself is redrawing it all the time, and we contribute to his redrawing with our reactions to Russia’s activities. A question like “Did US intelligence-sharing with Ukraine cross a line?” makes us obliterate the basic fact: it was Russia itself which crossed the line, by attacking Ukraine. So instead of perceiving ourselves as a group which just reacts to Putin as an impenetrable evil genius, we should turn the gaze back at ourselves: what do we – the “free west” – want in this affair?
We must analyze the ambiguity of our support of Ukraine with the same cruelty we analyze Russia’s stance. We should reach beyond double standards applied today to the very foundations of European liberalism. Remember how, in the western liberal tradition, colonization was often justified in the terms of the rights of working people. John Locke, the great Enlightenment philosopher and advocate of human rights, justified white settlers grabbing land from Native Americans with a strange left-sounding argument against excessive private property. His premise was that an individual should be allowed to own only as much land as he is able to use productively, not large tracts of land that he is not able to use (and then eventually rents to others). In North America, as he saw it, Indigenous people were using vast tracts of land mostly just for hunting, and the white settlers who wanted to use it for intense agriculture had the right to seize it for the benefit of humanity.
In the ongoing Ukraine crisis, both sides present their acts as something they simply had to do: the west had to help Ukraine remain free and independent; Russia was compelled to intervene militarily to protect its safety. The latest example: the Russian foreign ministry claiming Russia will be “forced to take retaliatory steps” if Finland joins Nato. No, it will not be “forced”, in the same way that Russia was not “forced” to attack Ukraine. This decision appears “forced” only if one accepts the whole set of ideological and geopolitical assumptions that sustain Russian politics.
These assumptions have to be analyzed closely, without any taboos. One often hears that we should draw a strict line of separation between Putin’s politics and the great Russian culture, but this line of separation is much more porous than it may appear. We should resolutely reject the idea that, after years of patiently trying to resolve the Ukrainian crisis through negotiations, Russia was finally forced/compelled to attack Ukraine – one is never forced to attack and annihilate a whole country. The roots are much deeper; I am ready to call them properly metaphysical.
Anatoly Chubais, the father of Russian oligarchs (he orchestrated Russia’s rapid privatization in 1992), said in 2004: “I’ve reread all of Dostoevsky over the past three months. And I feel nothing but almost physical hatred for the man. He is certainly a genius, but his idea of Russians as special, holy people, his cult of suffering and the false choices he presents make me want to tear him to pieces.” As much as I dislike Chubais for his politics, I think he is right about Dostoevsky, who provided the “deepest” expression of the opposition between Europe and Russia: individualism versus collective spirit, materialist hedonism versus the spirit of sacrifice.
Russia now presents its invasion as a new step in the fight for decolonization, against western globalization. In a text published earlier this month, Dmitry Medvedev, the ex-president of Russia and now the deputy secretary of the security council of the Russian Federation, wrote that “the world is waiting for the collapse of the idea of an American-centric world and the emergence of new international alliances based on pragmatic criteria.” (“Pragmatic criteria” means disregard for universal human rights, of course.)
So we should also draw red lines, but in a way which makes clear our solidarity with developing countries. Medvedev predicts that, because of the war in Ukraine, “in some states, hunger may occur due to the food crisis” – a statement of breathtaking cynicism. As of May 2022, about 25m metric tons of grain are slowly rotting in Odesa, on ships or in silos, since the port is blocked by the Russian navy. “The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) has warned that millions of people are ‘marching towards starvation’ unless ports in southern Ukraine which have been closed because of the war, are reopened,” Newsweek reports. Europe now promises to help Ukraine transport the grain by railway and truck – but this is clearly not enough. A step more is needed: a clear demand to open the port for the export of grain, inclusive of sending protective military ships there. It’s not about Ukraine, it’s about the hunger of hundreds of millions in Africa and Asia. Here should the red line be drawn.
The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, recently said: “Imagine [the Ukraine war] is happening in Africa, or the Middle East. Imagine Ukraine is Palestine. Imagine Russia is the United States.” As expected, comparing the conflict in Ukraine with the plight of the Palestinians “offended many Israelis, who believe there are no similarities”, Newsweek noted. “For example, many point out that Ukraine is a sovereign, democratic country, but don’t consider Palestine as a state.” Of course Palestine is not a state because Israel denies its right to be a state – in the same way Russia denies the right of Ukraine to be a sovereign state. As much as I find Lavrov’s remarks repulsive, he sometimes deftly manipulates the truth.
Yes, the liberal west is hypocritical, applying its high standards very selectively. But hypocrisy means you violate the standards you proclaim, and in this way you open yourself up to inherent criticism – when we criticize the liberal west, we use its own standards. What Russia is offering is a world without hypocrisy – because it is without global ethical standards, practicing just pragmatic “respect” for differences. We have seen clearly what this means when, after the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, they instantly made a deal with China. China accepts the new Afghanistan while the Taliban will ignore what China is doing to Uyghurs – this is, in nuce, the new globalization advocated by Russia. And the only way to defend what is worth saving in our liberal tradition is to ruthlessly insist on its universality. The moment we apply double standards, we are no less “pragmatic” than Russia.
- Slavoj Žižek is a cultural philosopher. He’s a senior researcher at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, Global Distinguished Professor of German at New York University, and international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities of the University of London
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
intense ish
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
They need more canon fodder, for lack of a better term, they can't dislodge the Russians without sending massive amount of troops to attack Russian positions, and as of right now they don't have those troops, heavy weapons is nice to have but Ukrainians are being a bit disengenous by trying to portray that lack of heavy weapons is holding them back.
Even if they had weapons to bomb the Russian positions to smithereens they would still need massive amount of troops to send in after, which funny enough is exactly what the Russians are doing in Donbas
NZA
LOL
yeah. the role has switched in those areas. DPR and LPR are locals who know the land and have tons of motivation. these people have been at war for years; having russia more explicitly backing them with heavy weapons is just making them a tougher threat than they already were since 2014. taking the areas could mean counterinsurgency. i think this will end with a demilitarized zone between.
ultimatemike
I'm about a dollar..
mannn fukkk all these rookie ass nikkas coming in here and stinking up this thread..
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
Gruesome account way back in 06 by vice of the Russian army treatment of their own recruits and soldiers.
www.vice.com
Makes me think of Japanese treatment soldiers during WW2 and what in turn would impact how they behaved towards civilians. Might explain the horrible war crimes taking place in Ukraine
Full Metal Torture
Over the recent New Year's holidays, Private Andrei Sychyov's superiors tied him to a chair and beat him continuously for hours and hours, taking breaks only to sustain their drinking binge.
www.vice.com
Makes me think of Japanese treatment soldiers during WW2 and what in turn would impact how they behaved towards civilians. Might explain the horrible war crimes taking place in Ukraine
never really thought about florists being a business that benefits from war. they must be doing brisk business.
of course she's against Ukraine fighting back 
Piff Perkins
Veteran
They're all against Ukraine fighting back. Same thing we saw in that thread on the Coli. People whose only foreign policy thought is "America bad." It's an evolution of the people who watched WWII start and said ok well it'll end with Poland, no one wants a big war. And then ok it'll end with Finland, no need to confront Hitler and make things worse.
None of this isn't deliberate though. It's not a coincidence that leftists attempt to ally with or defend right wing fascism or authoritarianism. It's not a coincidence that they excuse or ignore imperialism when it's not US based, or excuse war crimes as we saw in Syria/Assad/Aleppo. They are rehearsing for a world in which they think they can negotiate against brutes for their rights/survival. Good luck with that.
None of this isn't deliberate though. It's not a coincidence that leftists attempt to ally with or defend right wing fascism or authoritarianism. It's not a coincidence that they excuse or ignore imperialism when it's not US based, or excuse war crimes as we saw in Syria/Assad/Aleppo. They are rehearsing for a world in which they think they can negotiate against brutes for their rights/survival. Good luck with that.