• @adelita2938@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 month ago

    Family Member: Russia needs to invade Ukraine because they need a shield against NATO.

    Me: But NATO wasn’t going to attack them. It’s a defensive organization.

    That’s what THEY want you to believe. (Was not able to clarify who “they” were during conversation, but got the impression it wasn’t nato)

    • Cowbee [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      -121 month ago

      Even if you believe Russia to be 100% in the wrong, the idea that NATO is a defensive organization is laughable. Not only has it historically been led by Nazis, the member-states are the most imperialist countries on the planet. It serves to protect an inherently violent status quo of brutal looting and exploitation of the Global South, and that’s without getting into aggressive operations from NATO.

        • Cowbee [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I never said Russia didn’t invade Ukraine, my point is specifically that calling NATO a “defensive alliance” despite it’s sole purpose being maintenance of Western Imperialism is laughable. People who understand ACAB but defend NATO as “purely defensive” have an inability to understand imperialism.

      • @TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -11 month ago

        It’s also hypocritical. NATO is willing to allow Ukraine to join, but not Russia:

        The archives show irrefutably that the U.S. and German governments repeatedly promised to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch eastward” when the Soviet Union disbanded the Warsaw Pact military alliance. Nonetheless, U.S. planning for NATO expansion began early in the 1990s, well before Vladimir Putin was Russia’s president. In 1997, national security expert Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled out the NATO expansion timeline with remarkable precision.

        • Cowbee [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          21 month ago

          Yep. After the USSR was murdered and the State sliced up and sold for spare parts to the Imperialist bourgeoisie in the west, there was a nationalist bourgeoisie that regained control of the Russian Federation’s resources and industry, and the West never forgave them for that. That’s why Russia is a far-right dystopia in many ways, but unlike far-right dystopias allies to the US Empire, the Russian Federation is depicted in a negative light exclusively in western Media, unlike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Argentina, etc.

            • Cowbee [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              01 month ago

              What do you believe happened? It’s pretty clear that right up until it’s dissolution, the majority of the public had no idea it was going to collapse, nor did they want to replace Socialism with Capitalism. The majority of ex-soviets still claim it was better under Socialism than it is under Capitalism.

              • @Taleya@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                01 month ago
                1. The USSR was not murdered, it fell apart after decades of internal mismanagement and multiple leaders who were more invested in swinging their dicks around than feeding their people and dealing with the timebomb of internal ethnic tensions.

                2. countries were already breaking away before the ‘death’ knell, they had been forcibly absorbed into a warmongering empire and wanted no further part in it.

                3. reports of ‘people thought communism was better’ are not a trite thing to fling around, it’s a complex issue of fear of change, fuck capitalism live to work ideology, and people from a handful of very select countries who were perched very parasitically on the top of a heap to the absolute detriment of others getting butthurt at losing that position. There is a reason why no formerly occupied country wants to return to the USSR

                4). THE USSR WAS LITERALLY DISSOLVED BY ITS FOUNDING MEMBERS

                • Cowbee [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -21 month ago
                  1. Not really true. Up to the end, the Soviets were well-fed, there were genuine issues but it was fine. The Economy was slowing down, and the Soviets were still largely planning by hand, which failed to scale well with increasing production, but necessities were more than covered. The system was working, if slowing.

                  2. A few SRs had rising nationalist movements towards the end, but up until the very end the vast majority voted to retain membership in the USSR. It wasn’t until afterwards that it began to be murdered from the top, from the botched coup, to the change in leadership roles that allowed for conflicts within what was supposed to be a centralized system.

                  3. Wealth disparity was far lower in the USSR than in post-soviet countries.

                  On top of this, the majority wished to retain Socialism and want to go back. I don’t “fling it around lightly,” this is a well-documented phenomenon, Capitalism is worse than Socialism for post-soviet countries. The USSR also wasn’t an Empire, nor was it warmongering, it materially supported anticolonial and anti-imperialist movements the world over.

                  1. The USSR was not dissolved by Lenin or the other bolsheviks who founded it, lmao. This is absurd.
                  • @Manzas@lemdro.id
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    0
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago
                    1. We fucking didn’t why the fuck would we have joined NATO and the eu

                    Edit:If you think I am lying ask someone from a place that got occupied by the USSR most of you just go like: I saw this meme in the shit posting community time to make this my whole thing defending empires that don’t exist anymore

                  • @Taleya@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    01 month ago

                    the utter irony is what killed the USSR is reforms that would have brought it into line with how you THINK it operated. In reality it was an imperialist genocidal monolith that ran roughshod over many of its “member” states that were in fact for the most part occupied territories. Lets be very clear about that right now.

                    I have no idea what timeline you are dealing with, but I would also like to remind you that a forcibly oppressed population is not consent. And as soon as the repression began the lift, the riots for independence started and countries broke away. The fact that even after the dissolution of the USSR the majority of former member states wanted absolutely nothing to do with a “free” Russia should be a very large hint for you.

                    I was not talking about wealth disparity. I was talking about quality of life. This is very well documented.

                    The founding member states of the soviet union were Belarus, the Russian SFSR (roughly what we consider to be Russia today), the Transcaucasian Federation (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia), and the Ukraine. You know that “union” part of USSR? Yeah, it actually refers to a union of states. And they were the ones who pulled the plug.