I wasn't really trying to disagree with you on this. I've seen a sentiment from some "anti-imperialist" voices that end up being primarily anti-western voices, that assume that _only_ the US and the West behave with imperialist policy.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to disagree with you or anything. Just adding my own clarification around the context from some of the other discussions I've had on this topic. See, for example, macanchex's reply to my topic, which places all of the blame for this war on Western powers.
In India, even very right wing people are ambivalent or only somewhat supportive of Putin, whereas the supposedly "anti imperialist" Communists seem to have fallen in love with him. They go to great lengths to localize and translate Russian propaganda.
This might be a case of the enemy of my enemy (capitalist USA) are my friends. Actually they are only the enemy of their enemy and also capitalists, but the hopes of a lifetime can be self delusional.
The dramatic developments we are witnessing today have causes that we knew about but refused to see:
on the strategic level, the expansion of NATO (which we have not dealt with here);
on the political level, the Western refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements;
and operationally, the continuous and repeated attacks on the civilian population of the Donbass over the past years and the dramatic increase in late February 2022.
> on the strategic level, the expansion of NATO (which we have not dealt with here);
This is an Orwellian distortion of language.
Expansion can be interpreted in a literal sense or a metaphorical one. Organizations expand in a metaphorical sense. When we say that a company "expands" by by entering a new market or hiring new talent, we know that this is metaphorical.
NATO is a defensive pact with voluntary membership, but by calling it "expansionist," Russia plays a trick where it evokes the literal sense of expand to transform NATO into the aggressor. It seems fairly plain to me that the real expansionists would be the ones who have literally, physically expanded into a neighboring country by annexing Crimea. The expansionists would be the ones who are currently occupying territory in three foreign nations against the will of those nations' governments.
> and operationally, the continuous and repeated attacks on the civilian population of the Donbass over the past years and the dramatic increase in late February 2022.
By third party estimates, the civillian casualties in the Russian invasion are about two to three orders of magnitude higher than the civilian casualties in Donbass prior to the invasion. This is like slaughtering an entire village because it contains a single murderer. There is absolutely zero ambiguity about where the moral high ground is here.
>By third party estimates, the civillian casualties in the Russian invasion are about two to three orders of magnitude higher than the civilian casualties in Donbass prior to the invasion. This is like slaughtering an entire village because it contains a single murderer. There is absolutely zero ambiguity about where the moral high ground is here.
This does not even include the fact that any civilian casualties in Donbass were either incidents when counterfiring to russian and separatist shelling, or russian provocations.
We can even see this right now in the war: Russia just randomly shells apartment blocks with Grads, while UA only targets real military targets on Russian soil, like Belgorod fuel depots or Taganrog airfield. Russian propaganda doesn't even try to claim that, at least yet.
> the expansion of NATO (which we have not dealt with here)
A voluntary alliance isn't an imperialist agenda (assuming that the sovereign nations have the opportunity to make a truly voluntary decision, without outside coercion).
In fact, many nations have requested voluntarily to join NATO. Ukraine was one such nation, and wasn't allowed in.
Arguing that Russia should get a veto over which defensive alliances other nations join is a pro-imperialist position. You're taking the view that Russia gets to determine the behavior of other nations, because they are "in its security umbrella". I'm sorry, but that position is inherently untenable for an "anti-imperialist".
It's a coherent position for Russian Nationalists, or for believers in Super Power Imperialism.
Wasn't expecting the author to start with their time at Nato. It certainly doesn't match the western narrative, but seems far closer to the Russian narrative (explained cohesively).
He seems to be claiming there wasn't weapons transfer to Donbass, etc when they were initially acting as break away republics. How does he explain MH17? I spent too much time looking at this.
> on the political level, the Western refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements;
and operationally, the continuous and repeated attacks on the civilian population of the Donbass over the past years and the dramatic increase in late February 2022.
To think that Ukraine was shelling Donbass and "provoking" after what we seen in the last 50 days is truly a mental distortion.
This is, of course, the Russian take on the war. The Ukrainian version is significantly different. (And given the whole genocide thing, I know which I lean towards. I mean really, NATO, the West, and the Ukrainian government is responsible for Russian war crimes? https://www.reuters.com/resizer/i8u1Zr3pjvon_ZDTHHfs5b6IwlE=...)
Jacques Baud is a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, specialist on Eastern countries. He was trained in the American and British intelligence services. He has served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations.
Truly horrendous link. Your appeal to authority is nonsense, it doesn't take long to find someone with even more commas to dispute it.
> Anyone who is still pushing more weapons into Ukraine or tells Kiev to prolong the war is putting more Ukrainian lives at risk for zero potential gain.
Surely life under Russia will be blissful with no Ukrainians harmed.
Once you incur debt, it must be serviced. If you forego revenue via a couple of channels (income tax, inheritance tax), you can either (a) raise debt to replace the revenue you lost or (b) provide incentives so that the revenue foregone is invested (efficiently and judiciously) to spur growth, which brings in revenue or (c) raise revenue via other channels.
You can do some combination of the above. The point being, you have fewer options at hand once you incur debt, because default has dire consequences (ask Russia or Argentina), and printing money also has less desirable consequences (indiscriminate tax on everyone including those on fixed incomes and savers).
It's actually pretty much the same. As long as the government programs you are funding aren't too wasteful - and if they are the solution is to fix the waste - incurring sovereign debt is not that much different from foregoing revenue. The difference is that if you forego revenue from the top 1% you get worse outcomes than if you tax them or cut useful government spending or print debt.
Unironically, yes. Remember tax cuts isn't money just given away, the 1% didn't cause the spending part of the equation. You just think 1% should pay that tab.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/LSULYN3DV5JMHPGUUYJOEHOCHU.jpg){kind=link}