As a younger millennial on the left, I am routinely frustrated by "anti-imperialist" attitudes (especially among my generation, and younger). I think "anti-imperialist" is one of the least useful labels for a political worldview in contemporary politics.
Prior to the invasion, there was rampant criticism of NATO, and calls for its dissolution, on left-wing media, as an instrument of American imperialism, despite the fact that Russia has a history of aggression against post-Soviet states (e.g. Georgia) in the 21st century. With the outbreak of the war (outside of east Ukraine), some have walked back the more extreme aspects of those statements (as NATO's potential usefulness has been illustrated), but American imperialism via NATO is still discussed in the same breath as Russian imperialism via a military invasion and territorial annexation.
The truth is we have very little choice in our great powers or global hegemonies, and I will always take the NATO brand of "imperialism" (e.g. where countries literally ask for American military bases to ward against actual aggression) over the Russian brand. Should we be skeptical of NATO? Of course, as we should with all power structures, especially when they engage in actual violence; but to not have a nuanced discussion about what actual imperialism looks like in the 21st century, and to simply be blanket "anti-imperialist," is juvenile, and I'd argue probably detrimental to those that actually feel its real world effects.
>Prior to the invasion, there was rampant criticism of NATO, and calls for its dissolution, on left-wing media
Can you provide examples? I have not seen this, and as dissolution of NATO or otherwise weakening NATO was a goal of the previous administration, I am confused at this claim.
You've vastly oversimplified the politics of the American left and right, which are themselves varied. Just because Trump criticized NATO member states and potentially weakened NATO with his rhetoric, does not mean it was ever actual policy of the mainstream Republican Party, or really even the Trump administration, to dissolve NATO. In fact, Trump himself now claims that, if not for him, there would be no NATO [1]. Trump is a president that ran on no clear platform (e.g. his 2020 presidential campaign did not even publish one) or real coherent policy.
With that in mind, here is an article from 2018 in Jacobin, a left-wing magazine, saying that, regardless of Trump's comments, NATO's continued existence remains a valid question [2]; in fact, the Democratic Socialists of America (the primary progressive/socialist/labor party in the US) has calls for the US to immediately withdraw from NATO as part of its stated policy, even after the Russian invasion of western Ukraine [3]. These are among the most well stated positions regarding NATO skepticism on the American left, but similar opinions were expressed throughout left-wing independent media in the months leading up to the invasion (and earlier).
When you state you are a "millennial on the left", In the context of US / Americans, does left here means Democrats, or does left here means left on the political spectrum. Or at least left in the US political spectrum. ( Since left in US and left in UK are largely if not completely different )
Because I have seen a lot of "NATO skepticism on the American left". I dont even think the word skepticism is correct. They literally wanted to cancel NATO.
Wouldn't your view, in this case be more aligned as what is called centre-left? Especially in the context of US. Because if an outsider were to judge the US Left purely from Internet / Social Media / TV / Mass Media, than being pro-NATO ( so to speak ) is very much a right wing or non left wing view.
I mean left on the political spectrum, and certainly far more left-wing than mainstream Democrats or "center" left (even in a British or European context). Additionally, I use the term skepticism here similarly to how the term euroskepticism is used to encompass varying degrees of criticism for the European Union (including criticism that involves full withdrawal of all member states), just in this case in regard to NATO. As I said in my initial comment, I'm well aware that many on the left want to see the dissolution of NATO.
I don't think I would describe myself necessarily as pro-NATO, I just don't think its dissolution is reasonable, and I think its actually quite arguable that NATO dissolution would be a net negative. With that in mind, it's not uncommon for people, who are otherwise very far off from one another on the ideological or political spectrum, to agree (or at least agree in policy outcome) on individual issues (especially foreign policy ones). That's the nature of using a relatively one-dimensional spectrum to describe a complex system of beliefs.
>That's the nature of using a relatively one-dimensional spectrum to describe a complex system of beliefs.
Yes. I mean internet discussions are already hard on any subject with just text and little context. And politics is possibly the worst of all subjects.
> despite the fact that Russia has a history of aggression against post-Soviet states (e.g. Georgia) in the 21st century.
The aggression against georgia was due to NATO. Just like the current aggression against ukraine. NATO's existence is a threat to world peace just like the soviet union was. Any sane person would be for the elimination of NATO.
> and I will always take the NATO brand of "imperialism"
Yeah because syria, libya, etc are doing so great. NATO's imperialism has murdered far more people than russia's. Even in europe - yugoslavia.
> (e.g. where countries literally ask for American military bases to ward against actual aggression) over the Russian brand.
There are ukrainians who asked russia to protect them too...
> The aggression against georgia was due to NATO. Just like the current aggression against ukraine. NATO's existence is a threat to world peace just like the soviet union was. Any sane person would be for the elimination of NATO.
A complete inversion of reality. Post-soviet states want to be part of NATO because they are afraid of Russian agression, and Russia is afraid of those states joining NATO, because that means it cannot agress against them. Hence, Russia starting border conflicts in countries that wish to join NATO in order to secure Russia's ability for further aggression later.
If you don't mind me asking, do you think the invention of the nuclear bomb was a mistake, and the world would be better off if nukes wouldn't have existed (1945-)?
> Post-soviet states want to be part of NATO because they are afraid of Russian agression, and Russia is afraid of those states joining NATO, because that means it cannot agress against them.
There is some truth in that. But you are conveniently leaving out the other part. These post-soviet states are threatened with economic isolation/attacks/destruction/etc from "NATO/EU/US". Lets not pretend we are saints. The empire that needs to go today isn't the soviet union or russa. It's NATO. The greatest source of destruction, death, instability around the world.
> because that means it cannot agress against them.
What exactly prevents aggression against post-soviet states? Nothing. All their membership means is that they get to serve as buffers/firing range. Instead of germany or france taking the brunt of the bombs, it will be poland, latvia, etc. If russia invaded a post-soviet state, which country in NATO will come to their defense if it meant getting nuked by russia? Do you think britain is willing to get london nuked over lithuania? Think france will sacrifice paris? Every international treaty has been broken for a reason. If russia marched into poland or lithuania tomorrow, we'd all say see you in another 60 years.
> If you don't mind me asking, do you think the invention of the nuclear bomb was a mistake, and the world would be better off if nukes wouldn't have existed (1945-)?
No. I think every country should get nukes. Who doesn't want ukraine to get nukes? Russia and NATO. Think about it. Who doesn't want poland, lithuania, estonia, etc from getting nukes? NATO. What would have kept ukraine safe? What would keep post-soviet states safe? Nukes.
Lonely north korea angrily firing missiles into the sea of japan is far more secure than any post soviet state in NATO. You would think these post-soviet states would have learned their lesson, but they apparently have not. The only thing these countries have going for them is russia's weak economic position and the lack of incentive to invade post soviet states. Simple as that. Is there any sane lithuanian who truly believes any country is willing to suffer nuclear destruction on their behalf?
I see a weird dissonance in your post - you clearly believe in nuclear deterrence, but also negate that NATO - a nuclear alliance - provides deterrence, and claim that it would be better for nations to not be part of NATO, but have their own small nuclear force instead.
The first point is something that you'll have to resolve yourself, so I'd actually like the time to disagree on your second point - that a small nuclear force provides deterrence against major powers, like North Korea. North Korea has a very small nuclear arsenal, and an even smaller number of carrier missiles; this is exactly the threat you counter with BMD, and indeed, if you look at a map of where the US's BMD is located, you will find that it's squarely pointed at North Korea. North Korea is safe for other reasons, not because it could lob a nuclear-tipped missile at the US; it could lob nukes at various US allies, this provides deterrence, and is more difficult to defend against (and, as you would expect from this line of reasoning, both Japan and South Korea have been investing and continue to do so a lot into BMD). And North Korea is of course in a range where it could glass Seoul using conventional weapons, which is virtually impossible to defend against. On top of that there is an unclear amount of China in the back of North Korea; it seems unlikely that you could intervene in NK without China doing something.
The situation is even worse for a country like Lithuania. Even assuming they bring up their own nuclear arms program without Russia or anyone else intervening, which seems like one heck of an assumption to me, deterrence requires that you're actually able to feasibly launch something. This essentially rules out land-based nukes, because Lithuania is too small and all possible locations are too close to Russian land forces or naval forces to be able to launch a missile without giving a large window to intercept it. Air-based nukes are out for similar reasons, the country is small enough that air defenses would cover most of it. So now you're looking at SLBMs and the submarines that go with them.
There is only country that managed to do something like this, and that's Israel. And it does not border on another nuclear country, not even close - in part because they actively prevent that from happening.
> Lets not pretend we are saints. The empire that needs to go today isn't the soviet union or [russia]. It's NATO. The greatest source of destruction, death, instability around the world.
This would have played a decade ago, or even after Russia's quasi-covert military actions in Ukraine in 2014 that were easily relativized away. But these days, tens of thousands of humans in mass graves and billions worth of destroyed civilian infrastructure say otherwise.
The USian economic empire is a malevolent force, for sure. But Russia's industrial genocide and concomitant domestic nosedive into totalitarianism is on a completely different level, on a scale that we thought was a relic of the 20th century. Equating the two demonstrates a staggeringly foolish lack of perspective.
The civilian casualties in ukraine since 2014 is about 3,000. Not sure where you get tens of thousands.
> But Russia's industrial genocide and concomitant domestic nosedive into totalitarianism is on a completely different level, on a scale that we thought was a relic of the 20th century.
You do realize that far more people died in iraq, afghanistan, etc than will ever die in ukraine right?
That fact that you have to outright lie shows that your position is wrong.
> The civilian casualties in ukraine since 2014 is about 3,000. Not sure where you get tens of thousands.
He is clearly referring to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
> You do realize that far more people died in iraq, afghanistan, etc than will ever die in ukraine right?
Iraq was notably not a NATO operation, and Afghanistan was a protracted twenty year long war that saw some ~50 000 civilian deaths. At this point, considering the intensity and very high casualty numbers in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it's hardly credible to claim to know how many will "ever die in Ukraine" if we don't even know where that war is going, let alone how and when it will end. Above you also brought up Syria, which is again not a NATO operation, and Libya, where some 10 000 NATO air-strikes ended up killing less than hundred civilians [1]. Would it be better if those 40-70-ish people not have died? Obviously. Is an amortized 0.7 % chance of a given air-strike killing one civilian showing that NATO targeted civilians? I think not. That brings up to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, which if I recall is the only time NATO actually did something without UNSC (~everything) or Article 5 (~once) authorization, solely based on all NATO members agreeing to do it. Personally, I think it was the right thing to do, but it was done the wrong way legally and operationally.
[1] A popular claim on social media is that NATO killed over 500 000 civilians in Libya, which would amount to about 10 % of the population at the time.
Fog of war means there is no good count of casualties. Tens of thousands is my earnest order of magnitude based on rough estimations I've heard reading about various sites of atrocities. A good faith estimation is not a "lie". If anything, repeating an extremely conservative lower bound as if it were the full story is closer to being a lie (see also: the official USG Iraq body count versus unofficial ones).
The magnitude of the Iraq body count is horrendous, agreed. USG unilaterally deciding to attack Iraq is undeniably evil, agreed. If the US empire diminished, it would be a good thing - assuming it were due to underlying causes weakening the fundamental viability of large influence structures, and not simply different empires becoming more powerful.
But since we're talking about war, and not say cryptography bolstering personal liberty, then I'll begrudgingly accept the least-worst empire. And that is the role the US is playing in this situation, supporting Ukraine's self-defense against an aggressive totalitarianism-resurgent Russia. It does bother me to say that, knowing weapons manufacturers and other architects of USG's aggressive wars are making bank, and knowing the perverse incentive is for USG to string Ukraine along with just enough supplies to damage Russia but not make for a decisive end to the war. But I remember I am against Russia's imperialist attack on Ukraine for the same exact reasons I was against USG's imperialist attack on Iraq. The roles of the players have changed, so I must incorporate nuance to my views rather than leaning on the same old USG-bad heuristic.
Prior to the invasion, there was rampant criticism of NATO, and calls for its dissolution, on left-wing media, as an instrument of American imperialism, despite the fact that Russia has a history of aggression against post-Soviet states (e.g. Georgia) in the 21st century. With the outbreak of the war (outside of east Ukraine), some have walked back the more extreme aspects of those statements (as NATO's potential usefulness has been illustrated), but American imperialism via NATO is still discussed in the same breath as Russian imperialism via a military invasion and territorial annexation.
The truth is we have very little choice in our great powers or global hegemonies, and I will always take the NATO brand of "imperialism" (e.g. where countries literally ask for American military bases to ward against actual aggression) over the Russian brand. Should we be skeptical of NATO? Of course, as we should with all power structures, especially when they engage in actual violence; but to not have a nuanced discussion about what actual imperialism looks like in the 21st century, and to simply be blanket "anti-imperialist," is juvenile, and I'd argue probably detrimental to those that actually feel its real world effects.