Nearly everyone outside of the enlightened rational centrists has soured on this whole idea of “benevolent interventionism,” with very good reason. We’ve seen how our leaders used lies and deception time and time again to get involved in pointless, destructive wars for their own interests. People look back at Iraq and Afghanistan, and Vietnam, etc, and say they were obviously unjustified, but at the time people supported them, and everyone was immersed in propaganda. Of course, in every war, those who push back for any reason are always accused of treason and supporting the other side, whether the specific term is pinko, terrorist sympathizer, or tankie.
It’s really no mystery why a bunch of disparate political groups oppose a conflict halfway around the world under the same leadership and media that led us into Iraq and Afghanistan, the mystery is why liberals are so willing to trust them again.
I’m not saying I support western intervention in Ukraine necessarily. I wish there was no war at all over there. I’m just saying that between Ukraine and Russia, Russia has been the aggressor. Also I’ve definitely seen some Lemmy leftists (but definitely not all leftists out there) who are in favour of Putin’s regime, for unknown reasons.
It’s really no mystery why a bunch of disparate political groups oppose a conflict halfway around the world
You’re basically proving my point by admitting that you do have a very similar view to the far-right.
who are in favour of Putin’s regime, for unknown reasons
Have you tried asking? Or do you not believe the reasons they tell you?
You’re basically proving my point by admitting that you do have a very similar view to the far-right.
“Wow, both the far-right and the far-left distrust the US government, therefore they must be exactly the same.” This is such a childish analysis. I could just as easily say that both liberals and fascists dislike communism, therefore liberals and fascists are the same. Or fascists could say that both liberals and communists dislike fascism and are therefore the same. It’s such a nonsense point that it’s hardly worth a response.
Have you tried asking? Or do you not believe the reasons they tell you?
So you are you in favour of Putin’s regime? In which case I don’t see how you can think of yourself as a leftist. If you actually do support Putin’s regime then you have a lot in common with the far-right who also do.
If Putin’s regime was in the US then many people would call such a regime fascism.
Not particularly, no, but I suppose it depends on what it means to “support” a foreign leader. No matter what I say I support or oppose, it’s not going to change the material world unless I take actions with the aim of achieving specific results. And it seems to me that my primary mechanism for affecting foreign politics is through the actions of my own government. Do I want my government to undermine Putin’s government? No. Do I see Putin’s government as worthy of emulation? Also no.
My position as a leftist is to focus on class interests. Both Ukraine and Russia are capitalist governments that do very little for the people, and who controls what will make little material difference to lives of ordinary people. What does make a difference is the war, in which people are being drafted and thrown into a meat grinder to fight over rubble. What’s the point in dying to maintain a shitty system? Even if there was a point, it was probably inevitable that Ukraine would be unable to reclaim all it’s territory, so the choice was always, “Accept territorial concessions now, or accept territorial concessions after a bunch of people have died.” Of course, I don’t support Russia’s involvement either, but my government isn’t funding Russia.
Meanwhile, of course, the US is massively overextended. Decades long conflicts in the Middle East, supporting genocide in Palestine, sabre rattling with China, and now fighting a proxy war with China. Had we been more cautious and restrained in the past, perhaps we would have enough diplomatic leverage to diplomatically isolate Russia and enforce sanctions effectively. Or, perhaps if we gave up on Ukraine, the government could’ve more effectively isolated China. But by taking on both simultaneously, they’ve been pushed together, and the US has thrown away the key asset that allowed it to win the Cold War: the Sino-Soviet split.
Even if the war was completely justified and black-and-white, we would still need to consider the practical and realistic questions about whether maintaining the territorial integrity of a country on the other side of the world that most people can’t find on a map is really worth it, or even achievable. But liberals seem to really, really hate this kind of analysis, as if the world was a Saturday morning cartoon where the good guy always wins. The US is not Superman. We are dealing with all sorts of domestic issues which have given rise to the far-right, and that poses a much greater existential threat than control over Donbass.
How on earth can you accuse me of not being a leftist and being similar to the far-right for saying that we should spend more money on schools and hospitals and less money on bombs? What do left and right even mean to you?
Nearly everyone outside of the enlightened rational centrists has soured on this whole idea of “benevolent interventionism,” with very good reason. We’ve seen how our leaders used lies and deception time and time again to get involved in pointless, destructive wars for their own interests. People look back at Iraq and Afghanistan, and Vietnam, etc, and say they were obviously unjustified, but at the time people supported them, and everyone was immersed in propaganda. Of course, in every war, those who push back for any reason are always accused of treason and supporting the other side, whether the specific term is pinko, terrorist sympathizer, or tankie.
It’s really no mystery why a bunch of disparate political groups oppose a conflict halfway around the world under the same leadership and media that led us into Iraq and Afghanistan, the mystery is why liberals are so willing to trust them again.
I’m not saying I support western intervention in Ukraine necessarily. I wish there was no war at all over there. I’m just saying that between Ukraine and Russia, Russia has been the aggressor. Also I’ve definitely seen some Lemmy leftists (but definitely not all leftists out there) who are in favour of Putin’s regime, for unknown reasons.
You’re basically proving my point by admitting that you do have a very similar view to the far-right.
Have you tried asking? Or do you not believe the reasons they tell you?
“Wow, both the far-right and the far-left distrust the US government, therefore they must be exactly the same.” This is such a childish analysis. I could just as easily say that both liberals and fascists dislike communism, therefore liberals and fascists are the same. Or fascists could say that both liberals and communists dislike fascism and are therefore the same. It’s such a nonsense point that it’s hardly worth a response.
So you are you in favour of Putin’s regime? In which case I don’t see how you can think of yourself as a leftist. If you actually do support Putin’s regime then you have a lot in common with the far-right who also do.
If Putin’s regime was in the US then many people would call such a regime fascism.
Not particularly, no, but I suppose it depends on what it means to “support” a foreign leader. No matter what I say I support or oppose, it’s not going to change the material world unless I take actions with the aim of achieving specific results. And it seems to me that my primary mechanism for affecting foreign politics is through the actions of my own government. Do I want my government to undermine Putin’s government? No. Do I see Putin’s government as worthy of emulation? Also no.
My position as a leftist is to focus on class interests. Both Ukraine and Russia are capitalist governments that do very little for the people, and who controls what will make little material difference to lives of ordinary people. What does make a difference is the war, in which people are being drafted and thrown into a meat grinder to fight over rubble. What’s the point in dying to maintain a shitty system? Even if there was a point, it was probably inevitable that Ukraine would be unable to reclaim all it’s territory, so the choice was always, “Accept territorial concessions now, or accept territorial concessions after a bunch of people have died.” Of course, I don’t support Russia’s involvement either, but my government isn’t funding Russia.
Meanwhile, of course, the US is massively overextended. Decades long conflicts in the Middle East, supporting genocide in Palestine, sabre rattling with China, and now fighting a proxy war with China. Had we been more cautious and restrained in the past, perhaps we would have enough diplomatic leverage to diplomatically isolate Russia and enforce sanctions effectively. Or, perhaps if we gave up on Ukraine, the government could’ve more effectively isolated China. But by taking on both simultaneously, they’ve been pushed together, and the US has thrown away the key asset that allowed it to win the Cold War: the Sino-Soviet split.
Even if the war was completely justified and black-and-white, we would still need to consider the practical and realistic questions about whether maintaining the territorial integrity of a country on the other side of the world that most people can’t find on a map is really worth it, or even achievable. But liberals seem to really, really hate this kind of analysis, as if the world was a Saturday morning cartoon where the good guy always wins. The US is not Superman. We are dealing with all sorts of domestic issues which have given rise to the far-right, and that poses a much greater existential threat than control over Donbass.
How on earth can you accuse me of not being a leftist and being similar to the far-right for saying that we should spend more money on schools and hospitals and less money on bombs? What do left and right even mean to you?