Russian chest thumping - Chinese incursions

[ImmortalFlame]

To be fair, this is the one area where I think the US doesn't exactly look innocent. Taking for granted that the US will back pro-Western regimes or try to overthrow anti-Western ones has resulted in their propping up dictatorships and puppets around the world just because of their own interests, the rights of populations be damned. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq are just a few examples out of many.

Russia is in the wrong for invading Ukraine, but it's also important to consider why so many people are side-eying the US. Many of us outside the West are tired of its interventionism, abusive foreign policy, and moralizing double standards. History indicates that the US would probably back an invasion similar to Putin's if its geopolitical interests aligned with it.

To be clear, I have never said the US is innocent in any way. I am talking about these specific instances and this specific history. And, in this instance, what the US is doing is markedly not as bad as what Russia is going.

The fact that the US is currently the global political and economic hegemon, meaning it is generally in most country's interests to forge strong economic and social ties with the US, is bad. But that is the current global system we are operating within, and if some countries can actually benefit from closer ties to the US, then I favour their right to do so freely. I am aware of the US's history of installing puppet regimes, etc., but that is not what is happening in this case, and I do not believe in purity testing on a global political landscape. Just because the US has done bad things doesn't mean everything they do is bad, and just because they are not innocent doesn't mean that they can't be on the right side of a particular political issue.

In this case, Ukraine elected a leader who was unpopular and rejected closer ties with the EU in favour of closer ties with Russia. This lead to mass protests so bad that he was effectively exiled to Russia (and it's worth taking a brief look into what Yanukovych got up to as PM that also spurred people to oust him from power). In the power vacuum, the US sought to capitalize - as literally all countries with any kind of power or influence do - by forging closer relations with Ukraine and supporting a PM who wanted closer economic ties to the west. It just so happened to be the case that this massively benefited the citizens of Ukraine as well.

So, yes, the US was not a benevolent force for good. They got involved because they wanted to expand their sphere of influence. By happy coincidence, this benefited Ukraine too. Considering the alternative was Ukraine having closer ties to Russia, which would have left them poorer, their people unhappier, and left them more open to the continued expoitation by the Russian state, I am happy they picked the better option.

 

[Debater Slayer]

To be clear, I have never said the US is innocent in any way. I am talking about these specific instances and this specific history. And, in this instance, what the US is doing is markedly not as bad as what Russia is going.

The fact that the US is currently the global political and economic hegemon, meaning it is generally in most country's interests to forge strong economic and social ties with the US, is bad. But that is the current global system we are operating within, and if some countries can actually benefit from closer ties to the US, then I favour their right to do so freely. I am aware of the US's history of installing puppet regimes, etc., but that is not what is happening in this case, and I do not believe in purity testing on a global political landscape. Just because the US has done bad things doesn't mean everything they do is bad, and just because they are not innocent doesn't mean that they can't be on the right side of a particular political issue.

In this case, Ukraine elected a leader who was unpopular and rejected closer ties with the EU in favour of closer ties with Russia. This lead to mass protests so bad that he was effectively exiled to Russia (and it's worth taking a brief look into what Yanukovych got up to as PM that also spurred people to oust him from power). In the power vacuum, the US sought to capitalize - as literally all countries with any kind of power or influence do - by forging closer relations with Ukraine and supporting a PM who wanted closer economic ties to the west. It just so happened to be the case that this massively benefited the citizens of Ukraine as well.

So, yes, the US was not a benevolent force for good. They got involved because they wanted to expand their sphere of influence. By happy coincidence, this benefited Ukraine too. Considering the alternative was Ukraine having closer ties to Russia, which would have left them poorer, their people unhappier, and left them more open to the continued expoitation by the Russian state, I am happy they picked the better option.

I agree. I'm on the side of NATO and the US in this case not because they're innocent but because what Putin is doing is far worse. I'd side with any allies who sent aid if that helped my country during an invasion. It wouldn't imply support for everything they did.

 

[Estro Felino]

I agree. I'm on the side of NATO and the US in this case not because they're innocent but because what Putin is doing is far worse. I'd side with any allies who sent aid if that helped my country during an invasion. It wouldn't imply support for everything they did.

My country is a NATO country but that doesn't mean that the NATO is good. Because it sided with the fundamentalists both in Libya and in Syria.
Those who brought fundamentalism into a modern country like Libya, which is now is destroyed, economically, politically and socially.
Not to mention, Syria, where Putin is clearly siding against those who would like women to wear burqa.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree. I'm on the side of NATO and the US in this case not because they're innocent but because what Putin is doing is far worse. I'd side with any allies who sent aid if that helped my country during an invasion. It wouldn't imply support for everything they did.

I think people get bogged down into acting like geopolitics is some sort of team sports.

To be fair, now that I think about it, that's basically how people tend to approach literally everything these days. I blame the internet.

 

[Debater Slayer]

My country is a NATO country but that doesn't mean that the NATO is good. Because it sided with the fundamentalists both in Libya and in Syria.
Those who brought fundamentalism into a modern country like Libya, which is now is destroyed, economically, politically and socially.
Not to mention, Syria, where Putin is clearly siding against those who would like women to wear burqa.

Libya had already been destroyed by Gaddafi's intransigent, violent lust for power and refusal to step down even though Libyans demanded it. We've already discussed this.

As for Syria, this is what Putin is siding with:

Syrian regime blamed for sarin gas attacks in landmark report

Assad is a bona fide murderous criminal. He and Putin are of the same ilk.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Libya had already been destroyed by Gaddafi's intransigent, violent lust for power and refusal to step down even though Libyans demanded it. We've already discussed this.

As for Syria, this is what Putin is siding with:

Syrian regime blamed for sarin gas attacks in landmark report

Assad is a bona fide murderous criminal. He and Putin are of the same ilk.

Nice one. I'm not as up on my Libyan and Siryan history, though I find it utterly unsurprising that Estro is in favour of supporting war criminals and authoritarians.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Questions.
So we Italians are to blame for supporting Gaddafi and having political relations with him for decades?

I don't blame "[you] Italians"; I blame those in power and those who enable such policies. Any officials who supported Gaddafi were complicit, yes.

I don't think you represent Italians in general either, so I'm not going to make assumptions about them based on your opinions.

Also in view that Gaddafi is still considered one of the greatest socialists of our times, in Italy. A very capable statesman.

I think anyone who thinks so is either gravely misinformed or supportive of mass murder and dictatorship. Killing people who wanted better living conditions and more freedom isn't what I think of when "capable statesman" comes to mind.

Assad and Putin fight the radicals. Are radicals victims? No. They are destructive fundamentalists.
They destroyed Palmira, one of the most precious archeological sites in the world.

Assad and Putin have killed thousands of civilians and displaced hundreds of thousands, so no, they're not just fighting radicals or fundamentalists.

Also, a chemical attack is a war crime regardless of who they're fighting... and it still affected civilians to top it all off.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Nice one. I'm not as up on my Libyan and Siryan history, [...]

I was closely following the "Arab Spring" when it started and for a few years after, especially since my own country was a part of it. Gaddafi was a mass-murdering dictator, and Assad is the same. A lot of their supporters and apologists are ultra-nationalists who seem to think that aligning themselves against the "West" is a priority even if it means siding with such dictators. Some also don't even acknowledge or recognize that they're dictators to begin with; they just brush aside evidence of such as some conspiracy or smear campaign, also supposedly led by the "West."

You'll sometimes also find support for Saddam among those circles. One argument I have seen them use is that since he was ousted by the US in an invasion, he must have been a good, patriotic leader. Never mind that he brutally persecuted a subset of his own people or that he waged war against a neighbor (Kuwait); being overthrown and executed by the US supposedly makes him a martyr regardless.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I was closely following the "Arab Spring" when it started and for a few years after, especially since my own country was a part of it. Gaddafi was a mass-murdering dictator, and Assad is the same. A lot of their supporters and apologists are ultra-nationalists who seem to think that aligning themselves against the "West" is a priority even if it means siding with such dictators. Some also don't even acknowledge or recognize that they're dictators to begin with; they just brush aside evidence of such as some conspiracy or smear campaign, also supposedly led by the "West."

You'll sometimes also find support for Saddam among those circles. One argument I have seen them use is that since he was ousted by the US in an invasion, he must have been a good, patriotic leader. Never mind that he brutally persecuted a subset of his own people or that he waged war against a neighbor (Kuwait); being overthrown and executed by the US supposedly makes him a martyr regardless.

I've been seeing a lot of self-proclaimed "leftwing", "socialist" and "communists" talking up this line too. It's really disheartening to see so many people think that being leftwing must necessarily entail a hardline, anti-west position, to the extent that literally anything America does must be bad, and anything any country does that is vaguely anti-west or vaguely anti-US-interests or "in the name of socialism" must be good. Like I said previously, it just becomes team sports at that point.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I've been seeing a lot of self-proclaimed "leftwing", "socialist" and "communists" talking up this line too. It's really disheartening to see so many people think that being leftwing must necessarily entail a hardline, anti-west position, to the extent that literally anything America does must be bad, and anything any country does that is vaguely anti-west or vaguely anti-US-interests or "in the name of socialism" must be good. Like I said previously, it just becomes team sports at that point.

That's exactly why I have found myself scrolling past a lot of material on Marxists.org even though I'm a Marxist myself: USSR apologetics, pro-China rhetoric (up to and including justification of the Tiananmen massacre), and glorification of mass-murdering dictators like Lenin and Stalin. For some people, it seems that values and principles take a back seat to tribalism and reactionism.

 

[Estro Felino]

I was closely following the "Arab Spring" when it started and for a few years after, especially since my own country was a part of it. Gaddafi was a mass-murdering dictator, and Assad is the same. A lot of their supporters and apologists are ultra-nationalists who seem to think that aligning themselves against the "West" is a priority even if it means siding with such dictators. Some also don't even acknowledge or recognize that they're dictators to begin with; they just brush aside evidence of such as some conspiracy or smear campaign, also supposedly led by the "West."

You'll sometimes also find support for Saddam among those circles. One argument I have seen them use is that since he was ousted by the US in an invasion, he must have been a good, patriotic leader. Never mind that he brutally persecuted a subset of his own people or that he waged war against a neighbor (Kuwait); being overthrown and executed by the US supposedly makes him a martyr regardless.

Russia allied with Assad for a reason.


I used to know Gaddafi's Libya very well...and it was light years away from Saudi Arabia.
Women's dignity was respected: it was codified in Gaddafi's Green Book.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nice one. I'm not as up on my Libyan and Siryan history, though I find it utterly unsurprising that Estro is in favour of supporting war criminals and authoritarians.

It's paradoxical that some prefer the Saudi king over Assad, since Syrian women are not considered property by the Government, whereas in Saudi Arabia women are forced to wear the veil by the State.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Russia allied with Assad for a reason.
What kind of Arabic-speaking countries are a model for the defense of human rights, in your opinion?
Qatar? Saudi Arabia?

I used to know Gaddafi's Libya very well...and it was light years away from Saudi Arabia.
Women's dignity was respected: it was codified in Gaddafi's Green Book.

Russia allied with Assad because he's their puppet. Simple as that. They didn't want to risk losing influence in the region.

Gaddafi's Libya killed and tortured his critics when they demanded that he step down. He also led a corrupt, authoritarian regime. Whatever he wrote in his Green Book matters far less than what happened in reality.

It's paradoxical that some prefer the Saudi king over Assad, since Syrian women are not considered property by the Government, whereas in Saudi Arabia women are forced to wear the veil by the State.

Who has brought up Saudi Arabia in this discussion aside from you? What does it have to do with this in the first place?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's paradoxical that some prefer the Saudi king over Assad, since Syrian women are not considered property by the Government, whereas in Saudi Arabia women are forced to wear the veil by the State.

I find it very telling that you refuse to defend the things you say, and instead jump to talking about something else entirely.

We were talking about Assad, not Saudi Arabia. Stop with the dishonest tactics.

 

[Estro Felino]

I find it very telling that you refuse to defend the things you say, and instead jump to talking about something else entirely.

We were talking about Assad, not Saudi Arabia. Stop with the dishonest tactics.

The United States sided with Saudi Arabia against Yemen.

So it's not about the defense of human rights. The US follow the money.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The United States sided with Saudi Arabia against Yemen.

So it's not about the defense of human rights. The US follow the money.

Yes. Geopolitics exist. The USA isn't always the good guy and has some questionable alliances.

What does this have to do with you defending someone who literally refused to step down from power and killed his political enemies and protestors?

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes. Geopolitics exist. The USA isn't always the good guy and has some questionable alliances.

I promise, I struggle to understand the logic here.
So the US have the right not to be always the good guy....
whereas Russia doesn't have the same right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I promise, I struggle to understand the logic here.

Again, your selectively quoting and deliberately ignoring the point is suspect.

Respond to the WHOLE POST. Don't take one sentence out of context.

You are explicitly defending a war criminal and an authoritarian - WHY?

So the US have the right not to be always the good guy....
whereas Russia doesn't have the same right?

Nope. No idea where you got that idea from. Russia is perfectly capable of doing good things. They just don't do as many as other countries. And, in the specific circumstances of Ukraine, they are clearly in the wrong.

What is it? Double standards unleashed and normalized?

The double standard is imagined by you. There are some of us capable of thinking about geopolitics with nuance, rather than just saying a country is "good" or "bad" as a country. Countries are capable of doing good things and bad things.

This is not hard to understand, and it's a position I have been exceptionally clear on. If you genuinely think I am employing a double standard, then you are not reading my posts.

 

[Estro Felino]

The double standard is imagined by you. There are some of us capable of thinking about geopolitics with nuance, rather than just saying a country is "good" or "bad" as a country. Countries are capable of doing good things and bad things..

Actually there are good countries.
The EU has been at peace for 78 years. And yes, we are good.
Russia and US? They are pretty similar.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually there are good countries.
The EU has been at peace for 78 years. And yes, we are good.
Russia and US? They are pretty similar.

I will not engage with your childishly simplistic take on geopolitics.

I want to know why you support authoritarian war criminals like Putin, Assad and Gadaffi.