this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
152 points (95.2% liked)
World News
33437 readers
424 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
With no guarantees of safety from future aggression, why on earth would Ukraine accept such a deal? This whole war started with Russia breaking their previous peace agreement.
Because Ukraine doesn't really have much of a choice in the matter, the entire point of the war was to get to a point where that could be certified. If Ukraine refuses any peace deals, Russia will just continue the war.
If Ukraine doesn't get any security assurances, then they're effectively still at war. This war started after supposedly getting promises of security for ceding Crimea.
They're not the ones pushing this negotiation. If they just wanted to stop the war and give Putin everything he wanted with no guarantees he won't just regroup and invade again they could have done that at any time.
There's also the factor of the Euromaidan coup, NATO encirclement of Russia, and the Ukranian shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk at play. Russia, more than anything, wants Ukraine to either be fully demillitarized or forced into NATO neutrality, and has the means to continue whether Ukraine wants it to or not. If Russia genuinely wanted to, it could keep going until Ukraine is just Russian territory, but I doubt that will end up being the case.
It isn't a moral problem, but a question of who holds the cards. Ukraine can make its loss more devastating for both sides, but has no real path to victory. It is better to sue for peace before more damage is done and lives are lost, clearly Russia is fine to continue as long as it needs to in order to secure its interests.
Ohhh, gotcha. I thought this was a real conversation, not just blindly repeating ridiculous Russian talking points about NATO aggression.
Just because Russia says something doesn’t mean it’s false. Calling something a “Russian talking point,” is not an argument, it’s a thought-terminating cliché.
What part of NATO encirclement is "ridiculous?" Even if I agreed with you that it is "ridiculous," clearly Russia thinks it isn't, which means the motives are still there for Russia to continue pursuing its goals until Ukraine gives in.
This feels more like you dodging having to grapple with that reality than anything else.
Why do you assume sincerity from Russian talking points? Russia already has borders with NATO and didn't go to war to prevent them. The war pushed Finland to join, which is not exactly a surprising result from renewed Russian invasions of conquest.
The whole reason I subscribe to ml politics is because commenters here are less blindly credulous about the disconnect between the statements of American political actors and their actions, but then you just trade it for an infinite well of trust for foreign regimes that at least until recently were blatantly worse.
have you heard of this little thing called geography? Like mountains and stuff? Have you ever actually looked at a map of the region?
Totally disingenuous understanding of what's happening in this thread. There is no blind trust for the Russian government.
You have to understand one thing to unlock the perspective you need. It underpins both the reason MLs resist the official narrative of the empire and also why MLs accept certain narratives from other global actors. And that thing is an understanding of, and engagement with, history. It is our understanding of history that allows us to do readily understand when the empire is lying. It is also our understanding of history that allows us to readily understand when other states are saying something worth listening to. And it is our engagement with history that allows us to continue evaluating new statements from any sources.
In the case of Russia invading Ukraine, history is critical in understanding what's going on. And the relevant history extends all the way back to Napoleon. Napoleon invaded Russia once. He fielded the French national military forces, along with some international forces, and marched literally all the way across Europe to invade Russia to enact discipline for Russia continuing to trade with England despite Napoleon declaring a unilateral universal blockade. It was on of the bloodiest campaigns in history and millions of Russians died.
Napoleon invaded Russia via the border that is Ukraine.
Another invasion killed millions of Russians, too. That was the Third Reich. They fielded their national military and they took marched across Europe to invade Russia. They also had international forces. They killed so many Russians.
The Third Reich invaded Russia via Ukraine.
The Ukraine border with Russia has been demonstrated to be impossible to secure without sacrificing millions of Russians lives. The solution, therefore, for Ukraine to be devoid of military threats against Russia - enough military to defend itself against European meddling, not so much that it could threaten millions of Russians lives.
We know this history. So when NATO does it's first ever joint exercise with Ukraine in 2013, it raises a lot of eyebrows. NATO is a transnational nuclear military. It expands not by violence but by economic and political dominance. It is a standing army all over Europe but not controlled by European democracy. It has been demonstrated that NATO is controlled by the USA - again, a matter of history.
When Euromaidan happened in 2014, that was concerning to us because it was a movement that was aligned with European interests and explicitly a NATO-aligned movement. It got more worrying when we realized the US had top state actors on the ground including John McCain and Victoria Nuland. Russia choosing to annex Crimea was a clear message that Russia saw this particular movement as a threat, which we understand in the historical context of previous invasions.
After Euromaidan the NATO exercises got more numerous and more dangerous including flying B-52 nuclear-capable bombers in the region and simulating an invasion of Kaliningrad. Remember that military exercises and simulations are indistinguishable from real events until the last second when forces do not violate international law. That means the simulated invasion of Kaliningrad included the creation of supply chains and the mobilization of units and then moving them in formation to their target and turning away only when they reach the border.
This is a real and present danger to Russian security. If NATO establishes full capabilities in Ukraine, the only way for Russia to survive would be to lose millions of lives during an invasion over the border.
All of this comes from our understanding of history and our engagement with it to evaluate event and statements. So when Putin says NATO activity on Russia's border is why he acted, we acknowledge the congruence with the historical reality. But when he says Ukraine should never have been granted independence, we understand the errors in reasoning while also acknowledging the strategic military perspective it comes from.
When Russia says they are de-nazifying Ukraine, we understand the historical context of why that statement can be made. But we are also materialists and we understand to what degree the statement is incongruous with reality and history.
This understanding and engagement with history is what liberals lack and it's why those aligned with the empire can't properly criticize the propaganda and it's also why they are unequipprd to evaluate statements from other states, like Russia. It's why counter-cultural liberals just blanket deny what empire says and then get confused why MLs are willing to support narratives that match Russian or Chinese talking points.
Unless you engage with history and dig in, your resistance to empire will always be shallow and your understanding of what the rest of the world is doing will be purely vibes based.
🎖️
Though understanding history as “a bunch of stuff that happened” doesn’t get you far at all. You have to develop theory from the history, and you have to continually update, correct, and improve theory as history marches on.
An accessible deep dive on historical materialism, that assumes no prior knowledge.
NATO expansion:
.
NATO in general:
.
Maidan coup & fascist attacks on Eastern Ukraine:
NATO encirclement implies encirclement. Why do you think Russia is going to war in the first place? I don't trust everything Russia says, I think de-Nazification is a convenient narrative given the presence of Azov and other groups, but isn't the driving factor of the war (though is part of it). NATO encirclement is a known tactic, as NATO has origins as an anti-Communist, pro-Imperialist group that was formed to attack the USSR, and had Nazis such as Adolf Heusinger in charge. This is readily available information, from Operation GLADIO to Heusinger's Nazi past.
Why do you think Russia is going to war? What do they gain at the costs associated with the war?