I think the fact that this forum is rather small makes it easy for a couple of Russian agents to make it seem like they can speak for leftists here. They seek only to discredit the left and allow anti-democratic corporatocracy to reign.
Generally speaking, the smaller the forum, the less value it has to discredit or use. If it’s small enough to be easy, it’s small enough to not matter.
My bet is on “it’s more important to be anti-American than to be pro-left”.
I feel the same way. But I wish the arguments brought up by these “anti-american first” people were more balanced. And balanced does not mean less anti-american, but just to also keep a critical view on Russia.
An comparison could be with capitalist companies : I deeply hate Facebook. But if it was contested by a new capitalist tech giant on its own market, I would never mindlessly support this new adversary just because I’m anti-Facebook.
Just as I think anticapitalism should critizise any capitalist power, any country as powerful as the US or Russia should also be criticized for this kind of action.
This really has war propaganda vibes. Either you are with us, or against us.
This really has war propaganda vibes. Either you are with us, or against us.
Could it be any other way? Groups/movements/ideologies that aren’t like this have lower survival odds. Thus evolution weeds them out. Self-awareness being the most limited resource in the universe, those same people are quite certain they’re in the right about it, too…
What I’ve been wondering is why are (some) leftists defending Putin?
At least from my point of view there are two conflicting ideas at work. On the one hand there is Russia’s authoritarian system with all it’s problems that definitely should not spread and lots of leftists rightfully condemn.
On the other hand Russia still has considerable military power and just as the US absolutely did not want nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba (even though Cuba is an independent nation and the US should have absolutely no say in this, at least to their own logic regarding Ukraine) Russia does not want such missiles stationed in Ukraine. The US now claiming Russia should have no influence on whether the Ukraine can join the EU/NATO in the future is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. This is one of the reasons for the strong anti-Americanism.
From this perspective it becomes very clear that expanding the NATO into the east has always meant playing with fire. I absolutely do not want another Cuba-crisis and consider expanding the NATO an unnecessary provocation of the Russians.
Prior to 2013/14 when the Ukraine remained neutral the situation was much more stable and Russia had no reason nor intention to interfere in Ukraine. If the result of Ukraine getting closer to the US/EU/NATO is war, then I do not want it.
It’s obviously not indicative of the population as a whole, but the Finnish subreddit is inundated with people calling to join NATO immediately. A lot of people saying they’ve changed their minds. The opposition is by far the lowest it has ever been (gallup before today’s news, still mostly opposed to joining) and no doubt a lot of the politicians are thinking the same things, even if only a few are saying it out loud.
Finland doesn’t have a majority of ethnic Russians though. It wouldn’t make as much sense to make it part of Russia. Russia’s actions in the Ukraine are (in a way) democratic.
there would be no sense in russia going for finland. they already took karelia and the entire population essentially packed up and walked into finland overnight. going for finland? no one’s packing up as they got no place to go, and the rest of scandinavia will be pulled into it as a consequence. it’s asking for an outright war. a war russia have failed to win repeatedly.
Didn’t Soviet Union dissolve and get replaced by possibly the worst imaginable version of hard capitalism?
Basically. It’s a kleptocracy, with systemic theft from the masses going to oligarchs with Putin at the top of the heap. Also dangerous is its political structure. In a well functioning liberal democracy, power is diffused with well defined rules around transfer of power. Putin has for decades been operating without someone else there if he dies or retires. It’s why he’s built up a macho image. Putin must be healthy, or there will be political chaos with no obvious successor. In a system with more diffuse political power, the government barely blinks. Case in point: President Kennedy being assassinated had an incredibly minimal effect in terms of some sort of power struggle.
deleted by creator
I think the fact that this forum is rather small makes it easy for a couple of Russian agents to make it seem like they can speak for leftists here. They seek only to discredit the left and allow anti-democratic corporatocracy to reign.
Generally speaking, the smaller the forum, the less value it has to discredit or use. If it’s small enough to be easy, it’s small enough to not matter.
My bet is on “it’s more important to be anti-American than to be pro-left”.
I feel the same way. But I wish the arguments brought up by these “anti-american first” people were more balanced. And balanced does not mean less anti-american, but just to also keep a critical view on Russia.
An comparison could be with capitalist companies : I deeply hate Facebook. But if it was contested by a new capitalist tech giant on its own market, I would never mindlessly support this new adversary just because I’m anti-Facebook.
Just as I think anticapitalism should critizise any capitalist power, any country as powerful as the US or Russia should also be criticized for this kind of action.
This really has war propaganda vibes. Either you are with us, or against us.
Could it be any other way? Groups/movements/ideologies that aren’t like this have lower survival odds. Thus evolution weeds them out. Self-awareness being the most limited resource in the universe, those same people are quite certain they’re in the right about it, too…
Removed by mod
At least from my point of view there are two conflicting ideas at work. On the one hand there is Russia’s authoritarian system with all it’s problems that definitely should not spread and lots of leftists rightfully condemn.
On the other hand Russia still has considerable military power and just as the US absolutely did not want nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba (even though Cuba is an independent nation and the US should have absolutely no say in this, at least to their own logic regarding Ukraine) Russia does not want such missiles stationed in Ukraine. The US now claiming Russia should have no influence on whether the Ukraine can join the EU/NATO in the future is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. This is one of the reasons for the strong anti-Americanism.
From this perspective it becomes very clear that expanding the NATO into the east has always meant playing with fire. I absolutely do not want another Cuba-crisis and consider expanding the NATO an unnecessary provocation of the Russians.
Prior to 2013/14 when the Ukraine remained neutral the situation was much more stable and Russia had no reason nor intention to interfere in Ukraine. If the result of Ukraine getting closer to the US/EU/NATO is war, then I do not want it.
It’s obviously not indicative of the population as a whole, but the Finnish subreddit is inundated with people calling to join NATO immediately. A lot of people saying they’ve changed their minds. The opposition is by far the lowest it has ever been (gallup before today’s news, still mostly opposed to joining) and no doubt a lot of the politicians are thinking the same things, even if only a few are saying it out loud.
Finland doesn’t have a majority of ethnic Russians though. It wouldn’t make as much sense to make it part of Russia. Russia’s actions in the Ukraine are (in a way) democratic.
there would be no sense in russia going for finland. they already took karelia and the entire population essentially packed up and walked into finland overnight. going for finland? no one’s packing up as they got no place to go, and the rest of scandinavia will be pulled into it as a consequence. it’s asking for an outright war. a war russia have failed to win repeatedly.
In what way?
In the way that the people of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk want to be independent from Ukraine.
Even if this is true, it does seem to me like any democratic process was skipped entirely.
How so?
Basically. It’s a kleptocracy, with systemic theft from the masses going to oligarchs with Putin at the top of the heap. Also dangerous is its political structure. In a well functioning liberal democracy, power is diffused with well defined rules around transfer of power. Putin has for decades been operating without someone else there if he dies or retires. It’s why he’s built up a macho image. Putin must be healthy, or there will be political chaos with no obvious successor. In a system with more diffuse political power, the government barely blinks. Case in point: President Kennedy being assassinated had an incredibly minimal effect in terms of some sort of power struggle.