• Reva@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why are they sending hundreds of thousands of working class people of both Ukraine, Russia and third countries to kill each other then, if it’s really about the governments’ wrongdoings?

    Why not support revolutionaries within Russia, helping the Russians to dispose of their own government? Why does NATO have to be involved as an actor in the first place? Why do workers have to murder each other on front lines? The governments’ and militaries’ support should be constrained strictly to humanitarian support and help, not weapons.

    Both governments and their national capital are the enemy. It is a war between two economies over geopolitical control over Ukraine, fought by and written in blood of people who don’t profit from either side of the war. No Ukrainian soldier or Russian soldier wins at the end of the day. Whichever side wins, it is going to end in a bloodbath and further oppression. Sure, a Russian win would be worse in the long run, but the Ukrainian government and NATO countries ain’t no saints either, and is certainly not the side I would like to die for.

    • SootyChimney [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Though I personally don’t know who of the two evils would be the worse win in the long run, yes, agreed, very much this.

      • Reva@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Russia would certainly impose its oppressive social stances on the territory including its homophobia, sexism, racism, patriarchal order, lack of freedom of press and so on. This would probably not be as bad under a NATO-aligned European government (although the West has been known to bring fascists to power if necessary), which uses its slight edge in progressivism as a useful propaganda shield.

        Both would however use it as a geopolitical pressure point for further aggression, stationing nuclear weapons, economically colonize the war-torn ruins by “helping rebuild”, and subduing the local population and labor rights. Zelensky disbanded unions and the right to strike, abolished gay marriage for the duration of the war to prevent gay refugees from taking their husbands with them, banned socialist movements and is draconic against draft dodgers and peace activists (even those without Russian ties). The Ukrainian army stations troops in civilian places to hide them, endangering their own people, incorporate and welcome neo-nazis into their military as part of some kind of popular front, and use banned weapons. On the other side, Russia does all of these too and commits war crimes left and right, so it is not like they are any more welcome in my eyes.

        Either outcome would (in the long term) be worse for the people of Ukraine, Russia, the rest of Europe and probably the world. The war would not stop after Ukraine.

        As long as our economy is steered by the whims of wealthy people seeking to maximize their profits and not by any democratic process, we will have these issues over and over again as at some point the only direction the economy could grow is into other countries. It’s no coincidence that China and Russia are the “enemies” of the West when they are the two biggest economies that mainly act in competition to the Western economies. For instance, Amazon would literally kill to get the entire Chinese market, let alone all other American multinationals. And with the power that money and capital has, a war is possible to incite based on that desire to expand to “enemy countries”. Same with the Chinese and Russian economies. Tencent and Gazprom would love to control their respective Western markets.