I don't think being anti-war necessarily means one is in favor of Russia invading.
There's anti-war and then there is the nonsense in this thread that is getting rightfully culled
I don't think being anti-war necessarily means one is in favor of Russia invading.
Just to make sure - you don't think that all of the Ukrainians who are prepping to repel a Russian invasion are neo-nazis, do you?No one has any problem with arming a bunch of neo nazis in Ukraine?
The way tankie is used loses all meaning just like the term neoliberal. Tankie is a word coined by leftists specifically to criticize leftists who support leninist dictatorships. Russia is a fascist dictatorship, so tankie doesn't quiet apply.
Honestly useful idiot is fine as the term that applies here.
I think it's more reflexive contrarianism against the US. Since Russia opposes the imperialist and corrupt western powers, Russia must have some sort of point. Of course, what is missed is that while the former is true, that doesn't mean the latter follows, and context matters.I mean there absolutely is a segment of the political spectrum that still treats Russia like it's the communist USSR and casually supports them accordingly
It also ignores the point that the Russian government is just as imperialist and even more corrupt.I think it's more reflexive contrarianism against the US. Since Russia opposes the imperialist and corrupt western powers, Russia must have some sort of point. Of course, what is missed is that while the former is true, that doesn't mean the latter follows, and context matters.
Yeah. Any reasonable person should oppose Russian imperialism just as they would oppose iraq and afghan invasion by US without any equivocation. There are no good guys among the great powers, but we should at least be able to judge each situation by its own context rather than copy and paste the same analysis everywhere.It also ignores the point that the Russian government is just as imperialist and even more corrupt.
The ironic thing is that the many of the arguments made in favor of military intervention with Iraq and Afghanistan look exactly the same as the arguments made for military intervention with Russia.Yeah. Any reasonable person should oppose Russian imperialism just as they would oppose iraq and afghan invasion by US without any equivocation. There are no good guys among the great powers, but we should at least be able to judge each situation by its own context rather than copy and paste the same analysis everywhere.
I think it's more reflexive contrarianism against the US. Since Russia opposes the imperialist and corrupt western powers, Russia must have some sort of point. Of course, what is missed is that while the former is true, that doesn't mean the latter follows, and context matters.
The ironic thing is that the many of the arguments made in favor of military intervention with Iraq and Afghanistan look exactly the same as the arguments made for military intervention with Russia.
If I squint my eyes enough as I read the comments here it looks more or less the same as the comments in the liberal foreign policy blogs I was reading in 2002.
I can see in those examples, yes, but I still think someone is saying "Fuck both" and end there, without blaming NATO or the US, that really isn't being a tankie.
Some people are vehemently anti-war or pacifist. I don't think this makes them tankie-adjacent.
The ironic thing is that the many of the arguments made in favor of military intervention with Iraq and Afghanistan look exactly the same as the arguments made for military intervention with Russia.
If I squint my eyes enough as I read the comments here it looks more or less the same as the comments in the liberal foreign policy blogs I was reading in 2002.
Because if so I don't think squinting is your problem you might need an optometrist
Just to make sure - you don't think that all of the Ukrainians who are prepping to repel a Russian invasion are neo-nazis, do you?
I don't think you actually know what tankie means. Russia isn't Marxist, therefore one supporting its authoritarian tendencies isn't a tankie. Words have meanings, it doesn't just mean anyone that supports authoritarianism.I'm not in favor of war. I'm not saying that someone being anti-war is a tankie. If they're doing the "both sides are bad" when one side is on the verge of invasion and the other is not then they might as well be a tankie.
If they defend Russia and China solely because they are (ostensibly) in opposition to the West and capitalism I think the word fits even though current Russia is not the USSR of old.I don't think you actually know what tankie means. Russia isn't Marxist, therefore one supporting its authoritarian tendencies isn't a tankie. Words have meanings, it doesn't just mean anyone that supports authoritarianism.
I don't see how it applies to Russia. Tankie doesn't mean broadly anti-western, or reflexively defending the not western thing. It's literally a term used by leftists to denigrate militant communists that support other authoritarian communists. It's not some broad term, it's super specific. Russia is the opposite of a communist country. The term has literally no usefulness in the current context other than to be some snappy buzzword that means nothing.If they defend Russia and China solely because they are (ostensibly) in opposition to the West and capitalism I think the word fits even though current Russia is not the USSR of old.
Useful idiot that falls for propaganda from Russia/China while thinking they are taking a moral stance then.I don't see how it applies to Russia. Tankie doesn't mean broadly anti-western, or reflexively defending the not western thing. It's literally a term used by leftists to denigrate militant communists that support other authoritarian communists. It's not some broad term, it's super specific. Russia is the opposite of a communist country. The term has literally no usefulness in the current context other than to be some snappy buzzword that means nothing.
That's fine! haha.Useful idiot that falls for propaganda from Russia/China while thinking they are taking a moral stance then.
You are entitled to your private definition of the word, no matter how nonsensical. But to spin an epithet originally leveled, by leftists no less, at other leftists who supported sending in the tanks to enforce compliance to the central bureaucracy's programs... into being an epithet for leftists who don't support sending in the tanks... when neither state involved even pretends to be advancing Marxism, no less? It's bad comedy. In former eras, Liberals just stuck with calling leftist doves "fucking commie" or "peacenik". That's the vitriol you're renovating with your misappropriated lingo. You want to punch left? Do it honestly.If they defend Russia and China solely because they are (ostensibly) in opposition to the West and capitalism I think the word fits even though current Russia is not the USSR of old.
No one is asking Germany to fight Russia. Helping Ukraine defend itself from an invasion =/= fighting Russia.Germany isn't wrong to be so hesitant with throwing arms around and consider war an option of last resort. Nobody save the worst people (warmongers, profiteers, unaccountable militia and paramilitary thugs, and the like) win if the shooting starts, and it'll be yet another new low for relations reached in a negative spiral that has passed through decades and untold numbers of hands to get here. It goes without saying, but Russia, Russians, and Putin don't bear the blame for all of that. This crisis was preceded by countless others and there's been a lot of misunderstandings, mistakes, and duplicity cutting back and forth, and all the bad blood that arises from such.
Talk, talk some more, and keep talking no matter how slim the prospects. At worst, you're running out the clock and complicating the straightforward prosecution of the war. At best, you find a path back to rapprochement that takes the fire out of (credible) Russian fears that they're being encircled and marginalized in their own neighborhood, and the belief (to us, insane, to the cornered Putin, rational) that regional wars of aggression are the only way left to secure their international security against such. It's a tall order to accomplish that without carving up other European states and sending them down the negative, destructive spiral instead. On this point, people citing appeasement can reach for a better example: look to the many partitions that have been visited upon Eastern Europe, with Poland chief among them, and the enduring, cross-generational bad blood and numerous wars that was sparked for centuries afterward. The goal of diplomacy isn't about preventing just one European war, but all its children too.
That task is difficult, and it's not helped by the loss of American credibility in sticking to its diplomatic commitments, as seen with the Iran nuclear deal across the terms of three presidents: the first extended the olive branch, the second threw it into the flames, and the third demanded a return to compliance while moving as though the second's duplicity hadn't happened. The diplomats have their work cut out for them, and the Russians aren't irrational or bad actors to regard their efforts with suspicion. But for the good of Ukrainians and Russians both, and the rest of us, it has to be tried to the point of exhaustion. And if the shooting does start, it isn't the job of diplomats to take a vacation until the two sides grow weary of slaughtering each other. The work never stops.
You are entitled to your private definition of the word, no matter how nonsensical. But to spin an epithet originally leveled, by leftists no less, at other leftists who supported sending in the tanks to enforce compliance to the central bureaucracy's programs... into being an epithet for leftists who don't support sending in the tanks... when neither state involved even pretends to be advancing Marxism, no less? It's bad comedy. In former eras, Liberals just stuck with calling leftist doves "fucking commie" or "peacenik". That's the vitriol you're renovating with your misappropriated lingo. You want to punch left? Do it honestly.
I don't see how it applies to Russia. Tankie doesn't mean broadly anti-western, or reflexively defending the not western thing. It's literally a term used by leftists to denigrate militant communists that support other authoritarian communists. It's not some broad term, it's super specific. Russia is the opposite of a communist country. The term has literally no usefulness in the current context other than to be some snappy buzzword that means nothing.
It's still mind boggling there could and probably will be a war in Europe in 2022. No one stood up to Russia when they went into Georgia, went into Crimea and eastern Ukraine, assassinated people on foreign soil.. so of course they keep pushing.
Heart breaks for the Ukrainians.
I mean that would be pretty weird, like in this thread there are people claiming that Russia is communist? Odd.I'm telling you some of them absolutely still think Russia is that communist super hero
I mean that would be pretty weird, like in this thread there are people claiming that Russia is communist? Odd.
I'm telling you some of them absolutely still think Russia is that communist super hero
I didn't suggest people were asking Germany to fight Russia, nor that supplying arms was tantamount to German-driven Leopard IIs in front of Kyiv. Cannot fathom where you're interpolating this response from.No one is asking Germany to fight Russia. Helping Ukraine defend itself from an invasion =/= fighting Russia.
In terms of my use of the word - I used it for Russian apologists that are OK with Russia "sending in the tanks" not for people who are anti-war (as most are including me). Also, the conversation above resolved the use of the word before your post.
But when they're no longer years ahead of everyone else and when semiconductor fabrication isn't as centered in the region?No, it would not because TSMC's fabs are years ahead of everyone else.
You're right, it is a gross misinterpretation, a little black humor from my side if you will.This is a gross misinterpretation of my post to suggest that I think Taiwan is worth fighting for because of PS5 and Ukraine isn't. In the real world no country is going to enter into a major war without there being a clear alliance (NATO, etc...) or major economic/strategic importance (Taiwan due to its semiconductor prominence). I'm not sure what you're advocating. Do you want Biden to send in ground troops and have the US and Russia go to all-out war? If so, that's a pretty wild stance to take and one that would not be popular at all either on Era or among the US populace.
I'm just going be the one to say that I gotta ask what you're referring to here, because I'm trying to think of what you're referring to here and I'm drawing blanks for stuff that's Germany specific and also obviously not the historical events I imagine most people immediately thought of when they read this (since obviously that doesn't fit at all).Furthermore, Germany remembers well the horrific costs of pursuing war before all other options are exhausted and are more than qualified to remind us of them.
You know what? I think this is a fair take regarding Germany's actions.I didn't suggest people were asking Germany to fight Russia, nor that supplying arms was tantamount to German-driven Leopard IIs in front of Kyiv. Cannot fathom where you're interpolating this response from.
German caution on arms to Ukraine rooted in history, energy
Germany’s refusal to join other NATO members in providing weapons to Ukraine has annoyed some allies and raised questions about Berlin’s resolve in standing up to Russia.apnews.com
The German perspective is eminently reasonable, and beyond that worthy of respect and consideration. Throwing arms and other military aid into the equation sight-unseen and calling it deterrence is desperation, not coherent strategy, and you needn't look any further to the example of my own country that held meetings with a literal neo-nazi militia on Ukrainian soil to see why. Furthermore, Germany remembers well the horrific costs of pursuing war before all other options are exhausted and are more than qualified to remind us of them. The international community can doubt their resolve or their commitment all they like, but their sobriety is sorely need.
It's pretty simply when you think about. The U.S. can't find money for canceling student debt, medicare for all, or social uplift, but will scrounge up millions for lethal aid. And people get behind it.
Yet we only spend money on wars. Funny how that works outWe can spend money on both things.
It's shocking to see so many posters die on this hill.
You know what? I think this is a fair take regarding Germany's actions.
"I'm just going to be the one to say" and "I gotta ask" is a really strange manner to lead with out of the blue. If you're trying to appear personable or reasonable, it's having the opposite effect.I'm just going be the one to say that I gotta ask what you're referring to here, because I'm trying to think of what you're referring to here and I'm drawing blanks for stuff that's Germany specific and also obviously not the historical events I imagine most people immediately thought of when they read this (since obviously that doesn't fit at all).
(I mean I also have questions about a prior post's phrasing of "This crisis was preceded by countless others and there's been a lot of misunderstandings, mistakes, and duplicity cutting back and forth, and all the bad blood that arises from such." now that I'm thinking about it because it sounds like the argument implicitly made is about spheres of influence and what not but also I would like confirmation before I start bringing up my personal misgivings with that type of argument)
"I'm just going to be the one to say" and "I gotta ask" is a really strange manner to lead with out of the blue. If you're trying to appear personable or reasonable, it's having the opposite effect.
For Germany the two World Wars are going to loom largest in practical lessons of choosing war. To accomplish their state objectives (many of them unspeakably debased, lest this point become the fixation of some random JAQing off with a driveby) they eagerly pursued each war of aggression at such a great cost of life to themselves, their neighbors, and millions of innocents that every objective was frustrated and ran into the negative. The state itself was destroyed and scrubbed down to the cultural studs, two new ones raised from the ashes in a partition between East and West that lasted decades, divided families and one side of the continent from the other, and became a hotspot of tension in one bloc teetering on the brink of a nuclear exchange with another.
Germany holding the memory of the costs and consequences of its militarism close in mind when weighing their response and counseling the actions of their neighbors and allies in such fraught times is to be expected, and more than that commended. Some hither or thither might bemoan the Germans as being made feeble in this crisis by dependency on Russian natural gas, but such is lazy, shallow analysis.
As to the other thing. States with imperial histories tend to take a violently dim view of competition, threat, or the possibility of being marginalized in their own neighborhood (as the US is concerned, the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis both readily come to mind). You don't need a grand theory of spheres of influence or an intense study of international relations to come to that conclusion: it's a basic tendency, realpolitik in one of its simplest parts, and a tendency that both America and Russia have operated on for centuries into the present, but one some Americans strangely act with the act that it's an unnatural and outdated affectation of the Russian mind or something. They misunderstand how they operate themselves, let alone Russia, and it severely hamstrings their attempts to diplomatically engage with this negative relations spiral constructively. Know your enemy, the proverb goes, but there's another that goes unheeded: know thyself.
Without recognition and reckoning that this "my backyard" logic is also as American as apple pie, demands made to Russia to move beyond it will look hypocritical and self-serving to them. And they will be right on that point. There are enough difficulties present in trying to walk back from the brink without self-sabotage, and what is ("I'm not going to stand for this in my backyard") impedes the ought ("this is our backyard, we have to compromise")... for now. That we must collectively move past it is a given, and I have hope that we will. But the work is far from complete, and we flatter ourselves if we consider the west as having evolved past it. We're not there yet.
nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia with the pretext of "protecting" Germans and invaded Poland using a false flag operation."I'm just going to be the one to say" and "I gotta ask" is a really strange manner to lead with out of the blue. If you're trying to appear personable or reasonable, it's having the opposite effect.
For Germany the two World Wars are going to loom largest in practical lessons of choosing war. To accomplish their state objectives (many of them unspeakably debased, lest this point become the fixation of some random JAQing off with a driveby) they eagerly pursued each war of aggression at such a great cost of life to themselves, their neighbors, and millions of innocents that every objective was frustrated and ran into the negative. The state itself was destroyed and scrubbed down to the cultural studs, two new ones raised from the ashes in a partition between East and West that lasted decades, divided families and one side of the continent from the other, and became a hotspot of tension in one bloc teetering on the brink of a nuclear exchange with another.
Germany holding the memory of the costs and consequences of its militarism close in mind when weighing their response and counseling the actions of their neighbors and allies in such fraught times is to be expected, and more than that commended. Some hither or thither might bemoan the Germans as being made feeble in this crisis by dependency on Russian natural gas, but such is lazy, shallow analysis.
As to the other thing. States with imperial histories tend to take a violently dim view of competition, threat, or the possibility of being marginalized in their own neighborhood (as the US is concerned, the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis both readily come to mind). You don't need a grand theory of spheres of influence or an intense study of international relations to come to that conclusion: it's a basic tendency, realpolitik in one of its simplest parts, and a tendency that both America and Russia have operated on for centuries into the present, but one some Americans strangely act with the act that it's an unnatural and outdated affectation of the Russian mind or something. They misunderstand how they operate themselves, let alone Russia, and it severely hamstrings their attempts to diplomatically engage with this negative relations spiral constructively. Know your enemy, the proverb goes, but there's another that goes unheeded: know thyself.
Without recognition and reckoning that this "my backyard" logic is also as American as apple pie, demands made to Russia to move beyond it will look hypocritical and self-serving to them. And they will be right on that point. There are enough difficulties present in trying to walk back from the brink without self-sabotage, and what is ("I'm not going to stand for this in my backyard") impedes the ought ("this is our backyard, we have to compromise")... for now. That we must collectively move past it is a given, and I have hope that we will. But the work is far from complete, and we flatter ourselves if we consider the west as having evolved past it. We're not there yet.
Ah, I didn't know Germany were outright blocking arms from other countries. That is shitty of them.Instead of that, they're preventing other nations from donating hardware for Ukraine to defend itself (hardware that they didn't even build I might add).
Germany's behaviour is honestly shameful. If they want to follow the path of appeasment it's their choice, but they shouldn't actively get in the way of other nations trying to help.
How can Germany block Estonia from transferring weapons they bought and own? Are there some contractual obligations in place? That article doesn't clarify that.Ah, I didn't know Germany were outright blocking arms from other countries. That is shitty of them.
I'm pretty sure most (all?) weapon sales have such clause. Transferring US weapons to another active situation also requires approval from the US government iirc.
Although Merkel's response to the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 was firm, Steinmeier, sure that the SPD understood Russia better than Merkel's Christian Democratic Union party, went to Moscow and proposed an economic partnership with Russia. At the same time, three former chancellors of Germany – Helmut Schmidt, Gerhard Schröder and Helmut Kohl – all warned Merkel not to isolate Moscow. Within a week of the invasion, the chief executive of Siemens was in Moscow. As the diplomatic situation worsened, a group of senior German former officials and politicians sent an emotional letter calling for a return to the policy of detente.
This German-Russian relationship, a recent Chatham House paper argues, has been shaped by two factors. First, Ospolitik, which refers to the "change through rapprochement" foreign policy strategy towards the Soviet Union and its satellite states that was pursued in the 1970s by the Social Democrat chancellor Willy Brandt, and that tried to overcome hard lines by focusing on joint interests. The policy is still considered by many to be the way forward.
Second, the mutual dependence deal between the two countries that dates from the 1970s, when the Soviet Union and Germany agreed to exchange natural gas from the USSR for German pipes and steel. It is premised on the belief expressed by Schmidt that "those who trade with each other do not shoot each other". By 2018 Germany accounted for 37% of Gazprom sales, and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline had been agreed. German exports to Russia rose fivefold between 2000 and 2011.
However, in recent weeks the compromises inherent in Ostpolitik have come under challenge from a younger generation. Michael Roth, the SPD chair of the foreign affairs committee, argued his party had to escape the shadow of Brandt, adding "we cannot dream the world to be better than it is". Other ministers have insisted that energy, including the future of Nord Stream 2, cannot be removed from the list of potential sanctions, as it was in 2014.
All this leaves Scholz in a different position with his US interlocutors, none of it made easier by his alliance with a Green foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, who wishes to inject values into German foreign policy. The SPD, to avoid a public split, is now going to have a formal party debate about its approach to Russia.
Third time's the charm? In seriousness, I talked upthread at length about other aspects of my view, so if another poster asking after them out of order is disorienting, there's really nothing for it but to start at the start. If the argument is that this crisis can be distorted and reduced to such an extent, we fundamentally disagree.I read your post twice, and I still have no idea what you're talking about.
No one is creating this crisis except Russia. This has nothing to do with whatever else you're attempting to say.
If that both sides bile is aimed at me, you can swallow it. I've been nothing but clear that Russia is mooting a war of aggression in this crisis, and that ceding slices of other nations in talks isn't a solution for peace.I swear, if we were back in the late 1930s some people on this forum would find ways to put Poland/Czechoslovakia on the same level nazi Germany. Some of you are really fucking embarassing.
nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia with the pretext of "protecting" Germans and invaded Poland using a false flag operation.
Russia invaded Crimea through a black flag operationand they claimed that there was a need to "protect" the Russian population there, and given Russia's behaviour it's all but certain that there are least plans (whether they'll be executed or not is another question) for a false flag operation as a casus belli to invade Ukraine.
If there's one nation in western Europe that should not be putting up with Russia's bullshit, it's Germany. Instead of that, they're preventing other nations from donating hardware for Ukraine to defend itself (hardware that they didn't even build I might add).
Germany's behaviour is honestly shameful. If they want to follow the path of appeasment it's their choice, but they shouldn't actively get in the way of other nations trying to help.
And hell, Germany should also know better than anyone that appeasment doesn't work.
As for the rest of your post: This entire crisis is not created by some sort of misunderstanding by America, it's created entirely by Russia. More specifically, by Putin and his nostalgia for the USSR and his desire to back to the "good old time". He's essentially in " make Russia great again" mode. If Russia stopped putting thousands of troops and armored vehicles at Ukraine's doorstep, this whole thing would go away. The whole blame lies solely on their shoulders.
Apparently, these are old howitzers from East Germany (DDR) which have been sold to Finland.How can Germany block Estonia from transferring weapons they bought and own? Are there some contractual obligations in place? That article doesn't clarify that.
I really, really, really strongly oppose the US going to war with Russia.