One major difference between the two conflicts is that if the US had been in Russia’s position it would have invaded in 2014 and never attempted eight years of diplomatic solutions
There’s a major historical lesson there for anyone who wants to learn it. My biggest criticism of Putin was that he was ever naive enough to think the Fourth Reich would act in good faith on anything.
Yeah, same. A lot of lives would have been saved if he had not given them almost a decade to entrench. I think Putin was trying hard to buck the strong man characterization of him, but US propaganda does not bend to material reality.
The hesitancy is something the US never would have done, but the situation was also not a position the US would ever find itself in, because its enemies aren’t as belligerent.
I disagree. A comprador sells their country out to a greater power. I think it would probably be fair to call Yeltsin a comprador, but that really doesn’t apply to Putin or Russian politics since. Russians, both culturally and politically, have an intense sense of independence and sovereignty, as well as a generally good grasp on history.
Putin has spent a lot of his political career trying to wrestle power back from the oligarchs/mafias that were created out of the fire sale of Soviet collapse. You can certainly accuse the oligarchs of being petty compradors for the interest of western capital. The funny thing is that the sanctions kneecapped the oligarchs and strengthened the Russian governments regulatory power over capital formations that have lost access to much of their capital. Whereas no such thing has happened in Ukraine, which is basically wholly owned by Blackrock, Jamie Diamond and their ilk now.
By the time Putin came into power, the political and economic landscape (read: material conditions) had greatly changed. There was little political will to recreate the Soviet model and the new question was how you can realistically integrate and cooperate with your neighbors. That’s the reality that the Russian Federation was born into. If anything, Putin was naive to think Russia would ever be treated as a member at the table, instead of a grand entree when the European line go down.
Putin is not a ML by any measure, and we are not ideologically aligned. But, no offense, it’s pretty absurd to point to the Putin or the Russian political will in the present moment, and ignore that Russia (and the DPRK) are materially doing more to counter imperialism than pretty much anyone else. This is an existential struggle, and Russia is literally fighting a fascist comprador regime that has captured their neighbor.
Whatever language may be used to call the conflict in Ukraine, it’s fundamentally anti-imperialist. Breaking lines on anti-imperialism is some lib shit you should not engage in. Critical support.
One major difference between the two conflicts is that if the US had been in Russia’s position it would have invaded in 2014 and never attempted eight years of diplomatic solutions
There’s a major historical lesson there for anyone who wants to learn it. My biggest criticism of Putin was that he was ever naive enough to think the Fourth Reich would act in good faith on anything.
Yeah, same. A lot of lives would have been saved if he had not given them almost a decade to entrench. I think Putin was trying hard to buck the strong man characterization of him, but US propaganda does not bend to material reality.
The hesitancy is something the US never would have done, but the situation was also not a position the US would ever find itself in, because its enemies aren’t as belligerent.
He wasn’t naive, he’s just self-serving and wanted to keep compradoring until it became completely untenable.
I disagree. A comprador sells their country out to a greater power. I think it would probably be fair to call Yeltsin a comprador, but that really doesn’t apply to Putin or Russian politics since. Russians, both culturally and politically, have an intense sense of independence and sovereignty, as well as a generally good grasp on history.
Putin has spent a lot of his political career trying to wrestle power back from the oligarchs/mafias that were created out of the fire sale of Soviet collapse. You can certainly accuse the oligarchs of being petty compradors for the interest of western capital. The funny thing is that the sanctions kneecapped the oligarchs and strengthened the Russian governments regulatory power over capital formations that have lost access to much of their capital. Whereas no such thing has happened in Ukraine, which is basically wholly owned by Blackrock, Jamie Diamond and their ilk now.
By the time Putin came into power, the political and economic landscape (read: material conditions) had greatly changed. There was little political will to recreate the Soviet model and the new question was how you can realistically integrate and cooperate with your neighbors. That’s the reality that the Russian Federation was born into. If anything, Putin was naive to think Russia would ever be treated as a member at the table, instead of a grand entree when the European line go down.
Putin is not a ML by any measure, and we are not ideologically aligned. But, no offense, it’s pretty absurd to point to the Putin or the Russian political will in the present moment, and ignore that Russia (and the DPRK) are materially doing more to counter imperialism than pretty much anyone else. This is an existential struggle, and Russia is literally fighting a fascist comprador regime that has captured their neighbor.
Whatever language may be used to call the conflict in Ukraine, it’s fundamentally anti-imperialist. Breaking lines on anti-imperialism is some lib shit you should not engage in. Critical support.