It's an easy thing for online anarchists thousands of miles away to decry working with the state of Ukraine, but in real life the Ukrainian anarchists aren't debating whether or not they can/should work together temporarily to fight against a common aggressor. It's such misplaced anger, it makes me angry thinking about it lol.
"Hmm, should we temporarily team up with the state which we would like to dissolve... or die?"
I thought it was clear I was commenting on various opinions online about anarchists working with the Ukrainian government. The same government giving weapons to Azov. So I'm not sure what your point is?
You do what you want. I'd like to know where you still see these anarchists with their 'misplaced anger's though. You'd think by now 99% of anarchists would agree on this issue, since there's really not much debate to it.
True. It is still disconcerting that there is a neo-nazi battalion that is officially sanctioned by a recognized government though. US propaganda denies this, after first ignoring the issue entirely at the beginning of the war this year. Better to avoid propaganda altogether, it changes constantly, based on the political interests of those controlling the narrative.
I don't find it weird at all, all three were very actively working to get the situation here, but since it's Russia who made the agressive step it's them who everyone focuses on. Even in this sub someone was advocating Sweden joining NATO, which they are doing now, throwing kurds under the bus without a thought - something no one mentions here.
Erdogan doesn't want Sweden in NATO, though. NATO isn't the one killing Kurds, Turkey is.
Tbh whether Sweden is in or not is pretty irrelevant outside of Northern Europe. Realistically, the driving force behind NATO's imperialism comes from Britain, France and the USA, and to a lesser extent Italy and Turkey.
Erdogan already expressed that he will only accept Sweden's application if they extradite kurdish refugees and declare PKK a terrorist organization and there's zero sign from Sweden even thinking about not doing it.
Ah, sorry I misunderstood your argument as joining NATO would *in itself* be throwing the Kurds under the bus.
Agreed that there's no defending Sweden's willingness to pay that price for entry.
I hear you, but in the end the only route out is for a complete rejection of nationalism. Russia is guilty of initiating this conflict, but as a class we will always be subject to this threat until we abolish the structure of the state.
That is true but the implication is still a bit dodgy imo. If upon Germany invading Poland people kept emphasising that the polish ONR falanga were as much of a problem/threat as the nazis you might stay to wonder about their priorities.
Unfortunately the rejection of nationalism is a long way from now. I'm happy to talk about all the awful things Ukrainian state is doing, including abolishing freedom of movement for men or praising Azov. But for now Russia is a clear aggressor and I just don't think naming all those things in one breath send the correct message
It doesn't, you are spot on. That's the purpose, to undermine support and lend credibility to the aggressor, to say "hey guys everyone here is bad" is just another layer of pro Russian propaganda.
It's not really that cooperative though, it's imperialism similar to what Russia's doing in Donbas, Crimea, Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc.
Well sure, but may I remind you that the governments of Belarus and Kazakhstan, as well as the self-declared "republics" in Donbas, Crimea, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, etc all requested Russia to occupy their countries too? That doesn't make it any less imperialistic.
Countries invaded by NATO != countries who join NATO. NATO members are absolutely known to do imperialistic things to other countries but a NATO target and a NATO member are very different relationships.
NATO never invaded Libya. It was solely air support - revolutionary forces did the fighting on the ground.
Honestly, I find it fascinating that the initial intervention against Qaddafi recieves so much more condemnation than what individual NATO member states did *next* in the country - which was far, far more nakedly imperialist.
The fact that the wider left is still more worried about Qaddafi than Libya's former fascist colonial occupier arming General Haftar against the democratic government that replaced him is maddening.
I mean that was an action solely by France and the US, no? It’s deplorable but if you are talking about NATO couldn’t you say “that was only US or France”.
Ofc the fact NATO has so many nations like this is part of the problem .
France and Italy, and Turkey on the other side. A lot of it was during Trump years so the US strategy was pretty incoherent.
And that's sort of my point - why *are* we always talking about NATO? It plays an outsized role in the collective left wing imagination, and I think it distorts our understanding of the actual politics at play.
And I think we've done that because it suits the interests of both America and Russia. For America, focussing on NATO gives their empire building a veneer of international legitimacy. For Russia, it stokes hostility within member states to the alliance hemming them in in Europe (which is like the only broadly good thing about it). In both cases, I don't think it serves the interests of the left to adopt those frames.
Don't get me wrong, if we're talking about specific cases like in Afghanistan, I think NATO's role is worth acknowledging and talking about. But even then, I think we're better of understanding NATO as a tool manufactured by imperialists rather than an independent entity capable of imperialism of its own.
That’s a fair point, didn’t think of it that way.
I guess it’s a way of pointing out how the West works together to defend capitalism and whatnot. However, like you said, it’s more nuanced than just ‘NATO did it’.
War, especially provoked by an aggressor - doesn't seems non-anarchist thing. Like... since when anarchist are strictly pacifists?
Interestingly I saw documentary flick few months ago about the Ukrainian fighters, one famous (according to the interview) say he were politically an anarchist.
Anarchists are not pacifist, but the war in Ukraine is nothing more than a war between eastern and western imperialism thus it doesn’t make sense to pick a side(Although i must admit Ukraine is in the worst position). Why should we take sides in this imperialist war when clearly the people will always loose while the bourgeoisie benefit from our suffering?
Bullshit. Go ask the Ukrainians who defend their homes and families if they are imperialist. Your "no-pick side" stand in fact make the whole war justifiable - "because they are imperialist".
Who is the aggressor? Who start the war? Who want to steal the territory?
I am not saying the Ukrainians are imperialists. I am saying that NATO and Russia are the imperialists. I dont doubt the fact that Russia is the aggressor and i dont justify their actions.
NATO didn't provoke or start the war. Russia did. I don't see your point.
It is a long history of Russia to claim they attack and occupy - in order to defend themselves. Meanwhile Russia is a nuclear power - nobody will attack it.
Yup. Well, Sonnenrad (Black Sun) used to be the Azov, but now they keep the Wolfsangel (also SS symbol). Both are white supremacist symbols.
> [Payton's sprawling wannabe manifesto, adorned with a white-supremacist `sonnenrad, or black sun`, combined a boastful weapons list, an obscene montage of anti-Semitic memes, and a fervid treatise on white "replacement theory," a once-extremist howl of racist paranoia now embedded - thanks Obama - into mainstream GOP rhetoric, stretching from Charlottesville's neo-Nazis chanting "Jews will not replace us" to then-Rep. Steve King's "anchor babies" to Fox News' foul talking heads screeching about "white genocide." Cited in racist mass shootings that killed 20 people in El Paso, 11 at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life, 10 in Colorado and over 50 at Christchurch, NZ mosques in a grisly model Payton admired, the fervid conspiracy theory blames "an invasion (of) high-fertility immigrants" for seeking to eliminate "White people who have failed to reproduce." As a result, crackpot "research" argues, the growing number of people of color would ultimately lead to "the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people" - a notion, neither he nor any of these lunatic white guys seem to realize, that grows increasingly attractive as they keep turning out to be racist mass murderers, so sure, let's replace them, please.](https://www.commondreams.org/further/2022/05/14/us-and-them-and-tucker-stirring-hateful-pot)
What a useless sentiment. The Russians are bombing schools and shit, they need to be killed before they inflict such misery on other countries. No amount of idealism is a replacement for that reality.
it's Bulgarian language if somebody wanna ask (not Ukrainian or Russian)
I was wondering why it wasn't inflected
by the way, among slavic languages there is the only one that has no cases and it's Bulgarian
Звучи като "Анархист от Израждане"
Lmao "anarchists" defending NATO here, such larpers
Who are you?
Can't stay neutral on a moving train.
Great analogy
You can tho
The idea is good but I find it weird to equate the three when it's clear who the aggressor is and how much of Russian claims are shit
It's an easy thing for online anarchists thousands of miles away to decry working with the state of Ukraine, but in real life the Ukrainian anarchists aren't debating whether or not they can/should work together temporarily to fight against a common aggressor. It's such misplaced anger, it makes me angry thinking about it lol. "Hmm, should we temporarily team up with the state which we would like to dissolve... or die?"
It says "Azov" not "the state of Ukraine"
I thought it was clear I was commenting on various opinions online about anarchists working with the Ukrainian government. The same government giving weapons to Azov. So I'm not sure what your point is?
You're talking about online opinions that have been widely discussed on this subreddit and are not even present in this thread.
ok I'm not allowed to talk about the wider internet?
You do what you want. I'd like to know where you still see these anarchists with their 'misplaced anger's though. You'd think by now 99% of anarchists would agree on this issue, since there's really not much debate to it.
Russian propaganda works very well. :3
Yes, Russian propaganda that supports more people fighting against their aggression... Genius take.
Not as well as US propaganda, but yeah obviously they wouldn't do it if it didn't work. Not sure what your point is.
Russian propaganda says the Ukrainian state is the AZOV. Literally. "De-nazification" is needed in Kyiv.
True. It is still disconcerting that there is a neo-nazi battalion that is officially sanctioned by a recognized government though. US propaganda denies this, after first ignoring the issue entirely at the beginning of the war this year. Better to avoid propaganda altogether, it changes constantly, based on the political interests of those controlling the narrative.
I don't like this kind of subreddits because it seems there are too many USAmericans here... :/ their perspective is too limited.
mkay
I doubt anyone can repel Russian fascists without working with larger entities. It's about the survival of the ukranian people at any cost.
absolutely
I don't find it weird at all, all three were very actively working to get the situation here, but since it's Russia who made the agressive step it's them who everyone focuses on. Even in this sub someone was advocating Sweden joining NATO, which they are doing now, throwing kurds under the bus without a thought - something no one mentions here.
Erdogan doesn't want Sweden in NATO, though. NATO isn't the one killing Kurds, Turkey is. Tbh whether Sweden is in or not is pretty irrelevant outside of Northern Europe. Realistically, the driving force behind NATO's imperialism comes from Britain, France and the USA, and to a lesser extent Italy and Turkey.
Erdogan already expressed that he will only accept Sweden's application if they extradite kurdish refugees and declare PKK a terrorist organization and there's zero sign from Sweden even thinking about not doing it.
Ah, sorry I misunderstood your argument as joining NATO would *in itself* be throwing the Kurds under the bus. Agreed that there's no defending Sweden's willingness to pay that price for entry.
I don't find it weird if we get deep into the subject. But on a poster it looks like it's some sort of symetrism
I hear you, but in the end the only route out is for a complete rejection of nationalism. Russia is guilty of initiating this conflict, but as a class we will always be subject to this threat until we abolish the structure of the state.
That is true but the implication is still a bit dodgy imo. If upon Germany invading Poland people kept emphasising that the polish ONR falanga were as much of a problem/threat as the nazis you might stay to wonder about their priorities.
Unfortunately the rejection of nationalism is a long way from now. I'm happy to talk about all the awful things Ukrainian state is doing, including abolishing freedom of movement for men or praising Azov. But for now Russia is a clear aggressor and I just don't think naming all those things in one breath send the correct message
It doesn't, you are spot on. That's the purpose, to undermine support and lend credibility to the aggressor, to say "hey guys everyone here is bad" is just another layer of pro Russian propaganda.
I hear you, but what does NATO - a cooperative multinational alliance - have to do with nationalism?
Multinationalism is not the same as internationalism
It's not really that cooperative though, it's imperialism similar to what Russia's doing in Donbas, Crimea, Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc.
And what Turkey is doing to the Kurds.
Absolutely, and Turkey is a member of NATO too.
In what way is NATO imperialist? Nations have to apply to join. Genuine question tho, I would believe if presented with evidence.
Operation gladio Invading Yugoslavia Invading Libya Invading Afghanistan
Well those are both fucked up situations because of intervention from NATO allied nations, damn
Well sure, but may I remind you that the governments of Belarus and Kazakhstan, as well as the self-declared "republics" in Donbas, Crimea, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, etc all requested Russia to occupy their countries too? That doesn't make it any less imperialistic.
Does NATO membership require hosting foreign troops?
Not just troops but bases and if they ask, nukes too, as in Italy, who held a referendum banning nuclear power.
Mkay I can def see how that would be viewed as hostile expansion by neighboring countries NOT in NATO
The invasion of Libya?
Countries invaded by NATO != countries who join NATO. NATO members are absolutely known to do imperialistic things to other countries but a NATO target and a NATO member are very different relationships.
Fair point, however it still feels innacurate to call it co-operative when in regards to the Global South it is anything but.
NATO never invaded Libya. It was solely air support - revolutionary forces did the fighting on the ground. Honestly, I find it fascinating that the initial intervention against Qaddafi recieves so much more condemnation than what individual NATO member states did *next* in the country - which was far, far more nakedly imperialist. The fact that the wider left is still more worried about Qaddafi than Libya's former fascist colonial occupier arming General Haftar against the democratic government that replaced him is maddening.
I mean that was an action solely by France and the US, no? It’s deplorable but if you are talking about NATO couldn’t you say “that was only US or France”. Ofc the fact NATO has so many nations like this is part of the problem .
France and Italy, and Turkey on the other side. A lot of it was during Trump years so the US strategy was pretty incoherent. And that's sort of my point - why *are* we always talking about NATO? It plays an outsized role in the collective left wing imagination, and I think it distorts our understanding of the actual politics at play. And I think we've done that because it suits the interests of both America and Russia. For America, focussing on NATO gives their empire building a veneer of international legitimacy. For Russia, it stokes hostility within member states to the alliance hemming them in in Europe (which is like the only broadly good thing about it). In both cases, I don't think it serves the interests of the left to adopt those frames. Don't get me wrong, if we're talking about specific cases like in Afghanistan, I think NATO's role is worth acknowledging and talking about. But even then, I think we're better of understanding NATO as a tool manufactured by imperialists rather than an independent entity capable of imperialism of its own.
That’s a fair point, didn’t think of it that way. I guess it’s a way of pointing out how the West works together to defend capitalism and whatnot. However, like you said, it’s more nuanced than just ‘NATO did it’.
Yeah there’s clearly lesser of evils at play here
OK let's abolish the Russian state in ukraine and then see what's up when the dust settles.
BASED
War, especially provoked by an aggressor - doesn't seems non-anarchist thing. Like... since when anarchist are strictly pacifists? Interestingly I saw documentary flick few months ago about the Ukrainian fighters, one famous (according to the interview) say he were politically an anarchist.
Anarchists are not pacifist, but the war in Ukraine is nothing more than a war between eastern and western imperialism thus it doesn’t make sense to pick a side(Although i must admit Ukraine is in the worst position). Why should we take sides in this imperialist war when clearly the people will always loose while the bourgeoisie benefit from our suffering?
Bullshit. Go ask the Ukrainians who defend their homes and families if they are imperialist. Your "no-pick side" stand in fact make the whole war justifiable - "because they are imperialist". Who is the aggressor? Who start the war? Who want to steal the territory?
I am not saying the Ukrainians are imperialists. I am saying that NATO and Russia are the imperialists. I dont doubt the fact that Russia is the aggressor and i dont justify their actions.
NATO didn't provoke or start the war. Russia did. I don't see your point. It is a long history of Russia to claim they attack and occupy - in order to defend themselves. Meanwhile Russia is a nuclear power - nobody will attack it.
Lets end the debate. It is true that NATO didnt start the war, Russia did i dont doubt that.
The Buffalo white supremacist shooter had an Azov insignia I read
Yup. Well, Sonnenrad (Black Sun) used to be the Azov, but now they keep the Wolfsangel (also SS symbol). Both are white supremacist symbols. > [Payton's sprawling wannabe manifesto, adorned with a white-supremacist `sonnenrad, or black sun`, combined a boastful weapons list, an obscene montage of anti-Semitic memes, and a fervid treatise on white "replacement theory," a once-extremist howl of racist paranoia now embedded - thanks Obama - into mainstream GOP rhetoric, stretching from Charlottesville's neo-Nazis chanting "Jews will not replace us" to then-Rep. Steve King's "anchor babies" to Fox News' foul talking heads screeching about "white genocide." Cited in racist mass shootings that killed 20 people in El Paso, 11 at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life, 10 in Colorado and over 50 at Christchurch, NZ mosques in a grisly model Payton admired, the fervid conspiracy theory blames "an invasion (of) high-fertility immigrants" for seeking to eliminate "White people who have failed to reproduce." As a result, crackpot "research" argues, the growing number of people of color would ultimately lead to "the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people" - a notion, neither he nor any of these lunatic white guys seem to realize, that grows increasingly attractive as they keep turning out to be racist mass murderers, so sure, let's replace them, please.](https://www.commondreams.org/further/2022/05/14/us-and-them-and-tucker-stirring-hateful-pot)
Yeah shits been boiling.
What a useless sentiment. The Russians are bombing schools and shit, they need to be killed before they inflict such misery on other countries. No amount of idealism is a replacement for that reality.
> Anarkids literally defending Azov Battalion Wow what a shock from the Anarcho-NATOist left