Ukraine

[Acing It]

27 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

Speaking anecdotally, I've lived and worked in multiple regions of the US (in liberal circles) and there's never been any ill-will towards Russian people.

Commies! 😉😆 (or at least that what people who don't share that view will likely call people who say that, sadly). 

 

29 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

But I think Putin wanted people to see Russia as a scary regional menace again, rather than "just another post-Soviet country", and he's succeeding.

Or he's trying to build a heroic legacy so he'll be remembered by those that matter to him. 

[Acing It]

9 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

To the latter, no, it is not annexation, and not similar to how Russia is taking territory.

Could Russia see this, or propogandise this as, exactly the opposite to this?

 

Whether it's true or not doesn't matter, whether the Russian population believes it does (because of the lack of opposition voices). 

[Zagadka]

11 minutes ago, Acing It said:

Could Russia see this, or propogandise this as, exactly the opposite to this?

Putin is pretty big on reestablishing a Russian empire, and NATO expansion is a threat in many ways to that.

 

The distinction between "one nation acting alone" and "broad coalition of nations who happen to have close relations and always act together" loses meaning in some contexts.

[Still]

I think there is some merit to Russia's concerns, even if attacking its neighboring countries isn't the answer. Russia tried to join NATO in the 90s and was shot down because the purpose of the whole thing was always to oppose Russia. Now they're seeing NATO expand to their doorstep while being snubbed by both them and the EU for the last thirty years. Look at it this way: if China started a military union and Mexico or Canada joined it, how would the US react?

[Fraggle Underdark]

15 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

After the fall of the USSR, we voluntarily stated that NATO would not expand

That's actually a myth, no such agreement was ever given. (source)

 

17 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

Imperialism is imperialism. There is no such thing as establishing a military presence in another country in a way that does not make inherent demands and expectations, even if the government at the time is cooperative.

Yes, and lack of imperialism is lack of imperialism. Socks are socks and watermelons are watermelons.

 

Moving beyond tautologies, sure if we take imperialism in its loosest sense, of "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force" then yes, the US and practically every other powerful country ever has done this. Keep in mind I'm talking about the loosest sense! Practically every country, even not powerful ones, attempts to affect matters in other countries through diplomacy and force, for example Malaysia's decision not to host Israeli athletes for some competitions. There is Canada's imperialism towards the US because of their attempts to influence what we do by offering us better trade deals when we do things they like.

 

If we take imperialism in a stricter sense of suppression of autonomy, etc, then no. (If we're talking the last 30 years, though building a post-war government always walks a line at least.)

 

21 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

Even in our most "friendly" places, such as Okinawa, locals hate it. Even in places that are agreeable, decades later, they may not be.

Okinawa is well-known for being one of the places where locals most dislike the presence of the military base. It is ... surprising ... that you would refer to that as one of the friendliest places.

 

It strikes me as very paternalistic to think that governments are incapable of making fair or accurate decisions about what is best for their country. For countries to say "yes we agree to have a base here" and then say "sorry we know better than you, even if you agree now the locals might not like it later, and you're incapable of changing your mind".

 

30 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

I don't see how "me and my friends are coming" is better than "I am coming."

Basically agreed that coming with allies isn't better or worse than coming alone. (Aside from general tendencies for fewer countries to back unjust conflicts.) One of my points with the international nature of the conflicts it to spread blame fairly. If you're opposed to governments for participating in a military intervention then oppose all governments who made the choice to participate.

 

34 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

A brief look at our actions in the Americas, to this day, reveals us backing dictators and outright fascists carrying out human rights violations against leftists trying to stop those human rights violations.

I very much agree that the USA has done some shitty things with backing dictators in the cold war. I was speaking about the last 30 years since that was the time period you brought up.

[Fraggle Underdark]

52 minutes ago, Still said:

What countries does China "outright dominate"? 

I'm speaking about their attempts, whether or not they succeed, but: Taiwan, Bhutan, and though not technically countries now, Tibet and Hong Kong. India is quite powerful so dominance is a tough strategy there, but the CCP's approach to the Indian Border is claiming whatever they can get away with, legally or not.

[Still]

8 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

I'm speaking about their attempts, whether or not they succeed, but: Taiwan, Bhutan, and though not technically countries now, Tibet and Hong Kong. India is quite powerful so dominance is a tough strategy there, but the CCP's approach to the Indian Border is claiming whatever they can get away with, legally or not.

It's a stretch to claim any of that is "outright domination" especially compared to what the US has done to several sovereign countries in the last 20 years alone.

[Zagadka]

19 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

That's actually a myth, no such agreement was ever given. (source)

No agreement was signed, no. It was a soft statement of intention.

 

https://mltoday.com/new-document-us-promised-not-to-expand-nato-eastward/

 

 

20 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

Yes, and lack of imperialism is lack of imperialism. Socks are socks and watermelons are watermelons.

 

Moving beyond tautologies, sure if we take imperialism in its loosest sense

I hesitated to include the imperialism line, and I realize I made the wrong decision, since we apparently can not move beyond tautologies and technical distinctions.

 

 

20 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

 

Okinawa is well-known for being one of the places where locals most dislike the presence of the military base. It is ... surprising ... that you would refer to that as one of the friendliest places.

I meant Japan in general. Okinawa, and other specific locals that have to live with the military base, tend to rather dislike it.

 

 

20 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

It strikes me as very paternalistic to think that governments are incapable of making fair or accurate decisions about what is best for their country.

I think the decision on if a government is capable of making a fair or accurate decision of what is best for their country depends on whether the viewer agrees with the government.

 

We certainly and absolutely do not respect governments making decisions for their countries when those decisions do not reflect our values or, more frequently, our economic investments.

 

 

20 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

Basically agreed that coming with allies isn't better or worse than coming alone. (Aside from general tendencies for fewer countries to back unjust conflicts.) One of my points with the international nature of the conflicts it to spread blame fairly. If you're opposed to governments for participating in a military intervention then oppose all governments who made the choice to participate.

And we do.

 

But there is a rather large power disparity. When the United States and, say, El Salvador, agree to intervene in a conflict, is the responsibility and blame equally shared? Did El Salvador come up with the idea on their own and happened to agree with the United States, or did the United States stake investments and favorable agreements on El Salvador's continued cooperation?

 

This is where we go back to taking imperialism in its loosest sense.

 

 

20 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

I very much agree that the USA has done some shitty things with backing dictators in the cold war. I was speaking about the last 30 years since that was the time period you brought up.

We are doing those things today.

[Fraggle Underdark]

Quote

It's a stretch to claim any of that is "outright domination" especially compared to what the US has done to several sovereign countries in the last 20 years alone.

Domination refers to a particular kind of dynamic, which can play out at small scales between people or at least scales between countries. It basically means "do whatever I say". I am referring to this particular dynamic.

 

So to take Hong Kong for example, the CCP did not invade it because 1) international law said they already controlled it, and 2) Hong Kong didn't even have a military to resist with, I assume. By comparison, the US did invade Afghanistan and Iraq, removing the previous government. So that's more invasion than in the case of Hong Kong.

 

After this the US tried to get free elections going in Afghanistan and Iraq. Putting aside the question of whether even democracy should be enforced, the US didn't try to install a puppet and they didn't lock people up just for critiquing the US. The point is for the people of those countries to be free to discuss issues and vote for whoever they want. Compare this with Hong Kong where the CCP imprisons journalists even for speaking ill of anything the CCP is doing there.

 

Invading a country is in many ways more disruptive, but it is not the same thing as domination, which is enforcing agreement or submission.

 

When it comes to Tibet, China did actually invade that. As with all things, critiquing this is not allowed within China.

[Still]

18 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

After this the US tried to get free elections going in Afghanistan and Iraq. Putting aside the question of whether even democracy should be enforced, the US didn't try to install a puppet and they didn't lock people up just for critiquing the US. The point is for the people of those countries to be free to discuss issues and vote for whoever they want.

The US did install their hand-chosen leaders in both those countries. The elections, whose terms were dictated by the US, weren't even close to being free.

[Fraggle Underdark]

47 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

No agreement was signed, no. It was a soft statement of intention.

 

https://mltoday.com/new-document-us-promised-not-to-expand-nato-eastward/

I'm aware several soft statements were given a few times. (This is also mentioned in the source I gave, but I don't think people are obligated to read sources.)

 

I believe we're more on the same page that it may appear. Here's the larger section from that source I gave:

 

Spoiler

However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later.

 

The disappearance of the USSR created an entirely different geopolitical reality that quickly exposed differences between Western countries and Russia on how to manage European security and, in particular, on the role of NATO. From the end of 1993, Russian diplomacy voiced increasing opposition to NATO’s further enlargement, but accepted that it could not stop the process. Its chief lament was that several leaders of NATO countries in early 1990 had ruled out the possibility of NATO enlargement, and that the West had misled Russia. As Russia’s former foreign minister, Yevgeny Primakov, noted later with regret, there was no legal force to the statements by Western leaders even though, in his view, legally based commitments would have been possible at the time.35

 

The NATO enlargement myth also contains an important distortion of fact: while the Russian Federation became the de facto legal successor to the USSR after the latter’s collapse, Russia existed in different borders and its security interests were not synonymous with those of the USSR. Indeed, Russian leaders at the time did not want the West to regard the new Russia as a truncated form of the USSR, but rather as a country that had regained its sovereignty and was returning to its European roots after the tragedy of Bolshevism. In addition, the USSR signed the Charter of Paris in November 1990 with the commitment to ‘fully recognize the freedom of States to choose their own security arrangements’. The NATO–Russia Founding Act, signed in 1997, similarly pledged respect for the ‘inherent right’ of all states ‘to choose the means to ensure their own security’.

 

Also, and I really don't mean this to be an ad hominem attack against the source you gave, but in honesty I am suspicious of bias in an article on US-Russian relations in a low-budget publication called "Marxism-Leninism Today: The Electronic Journal of Marxist Leninist Thought". I also want to point out that the facts of the article seem to align with the source I gave.

 

[Howard]

10 hours ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

Russia deals with a chronically stagnant economy, and COVID sure didn't help.

It actualy be a reason more to declare war. War is a good excuse to run deficits that stimulates the economy. Furthermore, it would be easy for Putin to put a spin to it as being a liberator, making the populace forget about his ill-management of COVID.

1 hour ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

To add some context to this, at least the vast majority of bases are done in agreement with the countries they're in, and I believe this is at least predominantly negotiated with positive rather than negative incentives

I wholeheartedly agree. It's the end of WWI's negative approach that led to WWII. The creation of IMF prevented, at least in part, WWIII in the 20th century.

 

Now, a piece of my mind.

 

Considering that the old Cold War frontline was more defensible from both sides. Considering that it is now impossible for Russia to have a new Warsaw Pact because of the NATO members who used to be part of the said treaty to re-establish those frontiers, it is forseeable that it may want to re-establish, at least in parts, the old front line by force. It may be more likely, though not certain, as some on this post believe. Much of Western Russia and Ukraine are steppes, difficult to defend. Annexing Ukraine would make military sense as it pushes fighting against NATO in a more difficult terrain.

 

I think an important part of the Western propaganda that is omitted is that Ukraine, not being part of NATO, doesn't deserve boots on the ground from NATO countries and that against Ukraine's wishes. Aid is given to them only in weapons and money but not troops, at least not offensive troops. NATO doesn't seem to want to fight in such steppes where tanks can dominate. Being closer and industrialised, Russia can easily overwhelm anything on the steppes with their tanks. NATO instead sends troops in countries around Ukraine that are part of NATO, as if to contain a Russian invasion if it occurs instead of preventing it.

 

What does it mean for me?

 

Diversify my investment portofolio with gold. Gold prices like uncertainty. If there was certainty that Russia would invade, I would have sold my stocks and go all in on gold, but it's not the case. At the start of COVID, I sold all my gold to buy me a condo. I was waiting for things to go back to normal to invest in gold again, but with the uncertainty of the situation in Eastern Europe, I'm buying gold instead of new stocks ahead of time.

 

What does make me fantasize about?

 

The ''lizard people'' (not actual lizard people but people who lack empathy to the point of rather going in space than end world hunger) are happy, A war in Ukraine would be highly mechanized and need lots of oil, to the oil oligarchy's great delight. On top of it, it comes with a great timing : first COVID that allowed some people to sell high and buy the same stocks at a much lower price some time after followed by a crisis that let them sell part of the said stocks to buy gold that's going up due to uncertainty and to end it all, if war starts, with soaring oil prices. What a whammy!

[Fraggle Underdark]

22 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

We are doing those things today.

This source doesn't seem very diligent with its research. I would also point out that it's a publication advertising itself as "drawing on the rich legacy of Marxist thought without being bound to any narrow view or party line." I'm not against Marx, I think he was a good guy with some interesting ideas. But it's worth noting that Marxists have a long history of viewing themselves in a kind of total cultural war with capitalism and literally viewing capitalism and capitalist governments as the source of most human suffering. And hey, if that's true then it's true, but I haven't known Marxists to say "Hey this critique of capitalism seems a little unfounded, let's pull back and be sure to be fair to capitalism".

 

Anyway to the facts of it, I picked out a random example that I wasn't familiar with but could get more information on, the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. According to this source, "Honduran military forces, under orders from the U.S., seized President Manuel Zelaya, brought him to the U.S. military base at Palmerola, then exiled him to Costa Rica. This began an era of brutal neoliberal narco-trafficking regimes that ended in 2021 with the landslide election of Xiomara Castro, Zelaya’s wife."

 

According to Wikipedia:

 

Quote

The 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis^[1][2][3] was a political dispute over plans to either rewrite the Constitution of Honduras or write a new one.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya planned to hold a poll on a referendum on a constituent assembly to change the constitution. A majority of the government, including the Supreme Court and prominent members of Zelaya's own party, saw these plans as unconstitutional^[4][5] as they could lead to presidential reelection, which is permanently outlawed by the Honduran constitution.^[6] The Honduran Supreme Court upheld a lower court injunction against a 28 June poll.^[7] However, the constitutional process for dealing with this situation was unclear; there were no clear procedures for removing or prosecuting a sitting president. The crisis culminated in the removal and exile of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya by the Honduran military in a coup d’état.

I would also like to point out that this source claims that the US uses "organizations professing “human rights” (such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International)" for soft coups. (The quotes around "human rights" are from the source, they put those there.) They also state:

 

Quote

First, economic warfare on a country, through sanctions and outright blockades, creates rising discontent against the targeted government. Second, increasing use of corporate media and social media to spread disinformation (often around “human rights,” “democracy,” “freedom,” or “corruption”) to foment mass movements against leaders that prioritize their nation’s development over U.S. financial interests.

In other words, anything that looks like grass roots is actually all secret capitalist plots. The only way you can tell if people are speaking true is if they're opposed to capitalism (a suspicious statement from a Marxist publication).

 

As an aside they also seem to take issue with your position in WAYMCO to stop supporting cocoa farming for its "human rights abuses", as any such concern is just capitalist posturing in order to hinder the autonomy of The Ivory Coast. (I've since picked up some Tony's Chocolonely btw, the brand that focuses on combating slavery, and it's good! I recommend to everyone. Not even expensive.)

 

As a further aside, given that these are the sorts of things you're reading, it makes so much sense to me now why we disagree on the things that we do, in the ways that we do. That's not meant as an insult, it's a genuine feeling of getting a sense of where you've been coming from.

[Fraggle Underdark]

Quote

The US did install their hand-chosen leaders in both those countries. The elections, whose terms were dictated by the US, weren't even close to being free.

According to FreedomHouse, "The May 2018 national elections were generally viewed as credible by international observers"

[Still]

6 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

According to FreedomHouse, "The May 2018 national elections were generally viewed as credible by international observers"

Freedom House is funded by the US government. Not exactly an unbiased source.

[Fraggle Underdark]

Quote

Freedom House is funded by the US government. Not exactly an unbiased source.

As you like, here's a statement from the UN Security Council instead, about the 2021 elections, saying:

 

Quote

The members of the Security Council commended the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) for conducting a technically sound election.  They commended the Government of Iraq for its election preparations and for preventing violence on election day.

 

The members of the Security Council commended the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) for providing IHEC the technical assistance and international monitoring team the Government of Iraq requested to strengthen the electoral process and promote transparency.  The members of the Security Council thanked UNAMI for its assistance, and commended UNAMI for demonstrating objectivity in its efforts to support Iraq throughout the election process.  They welcomed IHEC’s and UNAMI’s efforts to promote women’s political participation.

 

[Still]

Some sources that state Iraq is not exactly a bastion of democracy even if the elections are technically sound:

 

https://ecfr.eu/article/iraqs-parliamentary-election-will-produce-more-of-the-same/

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/10/iraqi-elections-still-do-not-deliver-democracy

 

And they're from Western pro-capitalist media too 

[Fraggle Underdark]

13 minutes ago, Still said:

Some sources that state Iraq is not exactly a bastion of democracy even if the elections are technically sound:

 

https://ecfr.eu/article/iraqs-parliamentary-election-will-produce-more-of-the-same/

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/10/iraqi-elections-still-do-not-deliver-democracy

 

And they're from Western pro-capitalist media too 

Quite so. I saw those articles myself. I didn't mention them because they have nothing to do with the elections being free or whether the US installed puppets (rather, they both say the elections were free). They are about corruption in the government and the low expectation for reform among Iraqis. This is a different topic. And very far afield from any defense of what China is doing to neighboring countries. (The equivalent question would be to get into the weeds of how fair Bhutan's elections are, even if China isn't trying to influence them.)

[Howard]

Considering that the US wants to get the least involved possible with Ukraine and Western Europe has limited ties with the EU, What does the US propping up puppet states has anything to do with Ukraine?

[Zagadka]

8 hours ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

This source doesn't seem very diligent with its research. I would also point out that it's a publication advertising itself

*sigh* I have been rather busy today, and grabbed one of the few publications that popped up in searches. For some bizarre reason, large media organizations do not cover anti-capitalist movements very well.

 

I do not know anything about Honduras, so I can not and will not comment on that incident.

 

8 hours ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

I would also like to point out that this source claims that the US uses "organizations professing “human rights” (such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International)" for soft coups. (The quotes around "human rights" are from the source, they put those there.)

To be fair, I generally do not trust Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty has had some disappointments.

 

 

8 hours ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

In other words, anything that looks like grass roots is actually all secret capitalist plots.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are not grass roots organizations and have significant backers they do not cross, so sometimes, yes.

 

 

8 hours ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

As an aside they also seem to take issue with your position in WAYMCO to stop supporting cocoa farming for its "human rights abuses", as any such concern is just capitalist posturing in order to hinder the autonomy of The Ivory Coast. (I've since picked up some Tony's Chocolonely btw, the brand that focuses on combating slavery, and it's good! I recommend to everyone. Not even expensive.)

I'm probably in significant disagreement with them on a number of issues. Me pasting a link is not an endorsement of their entire platform. Marxist-Leninists generally live in a fantasy world where nothing is based in much reality, and far too often will do extremely dumb things like defend the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China as "anti-capitalist."

 

Absolutely none of this changes the number of times the United States has backed a right wing dictator, and it certainly does not excuse left wing dictators.

 

A better example of all of this would be our continued backing of Anez.

 

 

8 hours ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

As a further aside, given that these are the sorts of things you're reading, it makes so much sense to me now why we disagree on the things that we do, in the ways that we do. That's not meant as an insult, it's a genuine feeling of getting a sense of where you've been coming from.

*sigh*

 

These are not the things I am reading, that is a one off search result.

 

Please do not read one thing and assume everything about me.

[Fraggle Underdark]

1 hour ago, Zagadka said:

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are not grass roots organizations and have significant backers they do not cross, so sometimes, yes.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn there is something of that, as few organizations escape it. To clarify, by talking about "anything that looks like grassroots" I was referring to social media posts by regular people, that kind of thing, in response to the source's implication that mass protests of people can't be taken as a sign of genuine opposition and that all opposition is due to CIA-seeded misinformation. I didn't mean to imply I viewed HRW or AI as grassroots.

 

1 hour ago, Zagadka said:

*sigh*

 

These are not the things I am reading, that is a one off search result.

 

Please do not read one thing and assume everything about me.

Two things actually, remember. They were unusual enough in my own media diet that two sources like that in quick succession stood out. But yeah, I hear you about grabbing something that seems to fit, I know that's regular human behavior, and thanks for the clarification.

 

1 hour ago, Zagadka said:

Absolutely none of this changes the number of times the United States has backed a right wing dictator, and it certainly does not excuse left wing dictators.

 

A better example of all of this would be our continued backing of Anez.

Agreement that the US has often backed right wing dictators (at least we agree on this during the Cold War), and I share your dislike of dictators regardless of leaning.

 

As for the article about Anez I read it but am a bit confused. It mentioned that the US was concerned the arrest of Anez was anti-democratic political revenge, and the article also mentions this view was shared by the EU, both Bolivian and international human rights organizations, and 21 former Latin American presidents.

[Zagadka]

4 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

Two things actually, remember. They were unusual enough in my own media diet that two sources like that in quick succession stood out. But yeah, I hear you about grabbing something that seems to fit, I know that's regular human behavior, and thanks for the clarification.

Oh, that is entirely my fault for just grabbing sources without checking. I was mostly going for the list, and didn't have enough time, knowing that I would be gone for most of the day, and wanted to put something out.

 

One of the problems with generally questioning everything is not being able to really find regular reliable sources. What someone says about one thing may track, but another is open to question - whether that is Amnesty International or some random Marxist-Leninist website.

 

 

4 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

As for the article about Anez I read it but am a bit confused. It mentioned that the US was concerned the arrest of Anez was anti-democratic political revenge, and the article also mentions this view was shared by the EU, both Bolivian and international human rights organizations, and 21 former Latin American presidents.

I believe that entirely depends if you support the allegations of Anez being behind a coup backed by the US against Morales (who I dislike and do not support, but whether or not elections in Bolivia are entirely in Chtulu's hands.

 

I generally disagree with supporting any amount of political retaliation, but Anez literally declared herself president and went to work deploying military forces against her enemies, protesters, and indigenous groups, which were declared terrorists, which our friends at Amnesty International and other human rights groups decried.

 

It is unsurprising for groups to decry the arrest on grounds of whether or not the Bolivian courts can be trusted for an impartial trial, but the relevant part here is the United States involvement in backing her move and trying to end her trial.

[Fraggle Underdark]

26 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

I believe that entirely depends if you support the allegations of Anez being behind a coup backed by the US against Morales (who I dislike and do not support, but whether or not elections in Bolivia are entirely in Chtulu's hands.

 

I generally disagree with supporting any amount of political retaliation, but Anez literally declared herself president and went to work deploying military forces against her enemies, protesters, and indigenous groups, which were declared terrorists, which our friends at Amnesty International and other human rights groups decried.

 

It is unsurprising for groups to decry the arrest on grounds of whether or not the Bolivian courts can be trusted for an impartial trial, but the relevant part here is the United States involvement in backing her move and trying to end her trial.

So I dug into this, because I definitely don't want to pull a "this it too complex and I can't be bothered". And lord what a complex mess it is. Anyway, after spending quite some time reading about it, yes she gave a dangerous and ambiguous order to military who were sent to stop protesters who were trying to cut off basic services to two cities. (As an aside, before Morales fled the country many people protested against him, and after she took power those people stopped and instead Morales's supporters started protesting.) This resulted in 2 massacres.

 

However, her current trial actually has nothing to do with that, and it is this trial that the US views as anti-democratic (along with the EU, various human rights groups, and 21 former Latin American presidents). She is currently on trial for illegally seizing power, but honestly she seems to have acted pretty reasonably there. When Morales left there were mass resignations of his party members, way down the presidential line of succession. This left things rather unclear, ongoing protests meant the country was going through some instability, and there seems a quite reasonable case that she was next in line for presidential succession and the Constitutional Tribunal agreed.

 

So it is being held on trial for that that the US and a large number of international actors view as anti-democratic revenge. And even if someone doesn't think that's anti-democratic revenge, a strong case can be made that it is. By which I mean there is no need to infer hypocrisy or manipulation to argue that it's anti-democratic.

[Zagadka]

2 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

So I dug into this, because I definitely don't want to pull a "this it too complex and I can't be bothered". And lord what a complex mess it is. Anyway, after spending quite some time reading about it, yes she gave a dangerous and ambiguous order to military who were sent to stop protesters who were trying to cut off basic services to two cities. (As an aside, before Morales fled the country many people protested against him, and after she took power those people stopped and instead Morales's supporters started protesting.) This resulted in 2 massacres.

 

However, her current trial actually has nothing to do with that, and it is this trial that the US views as anti-democratic (along with the EU, various human rights groups, and 21 former Latin American presidents). She is currently on trial for illegally seizing power, but honestly she seems to have acted pretty reasonably there. When Morales left there were mass resignations of his party members, way down the presidential line of succession. This left things rather unclear, ongoing protests meant the country was going through some instability, and there seems a quite reasonable case that she was next in line for presidential succession and the Constitutional Tribunal agreed.

 

So it is being held on trial for that that the US and a large number of international actors view as anti-democratic revenge. And even if someone doesn't think that's anti-democratic revenge, a strong case can be made that it is. By which I mean there is no need to infer hypocrisy or manipulation to view that as anti-democratic.

The larger issue is that Anez did seize power illegally, and is someone who has said she "dreams of a Bolivia free of indigenous satanic rites" who used that illegal authority to arrest political opponents, sometimes with right-wing and fascist gangs.

It is extremely complex to break down how Morales lost power - and how much the military and foreign backing were involved. It is hard to even get a good idea of what actually happened in the elections. I don't trust Morales at all, but I also don't trust other sources. Audits of criticism of the 2019 election, particularly by the OAS, have been questionable at best.

 

It is extremely suspect how leftist leaders in Latin American countries with significant resources tend to be overthrown by shady right wing dictators with full backing of the United States and organizations such as the OAS, to have American corporations move in and take over previously nationalized industries, especially when those countries have a long history of American corporations and CIA operations causing coups and human rights violations.

 

It is also a very sad fact that environments such as this - whether they are Latin American or Middle Eastern - tend to have groups reacting to dictators and human rights abusers act with their own dictatorships and human rights abuses, and align with their own extremist state backers.

 

I don't think anyone can make an argument that a group like FARC is morally superior to CIA/US corporate backed death squads, but the fact remains that those death squads exist.

 

As far as Anez goes, she did illegally seize power, and the feeling is that there can't be a trial because we will find who backed that illegal seizure of power. Imagine if, say, the government had not reached consensus and shut down, and Donald Trump declared himself president in January 2021, only to be overthrown by a populist movement, and to have Russia declare the prosecution of him a political witch hunt.

[Fraggle Underdark]

I don't have comment on most of that, since it varies between things I agree with (it's unfortunate that many times humans overthrow a dictatorial regime with a different dictatorial regime) and death squads are bad, and some things which are complex statistical questions I don't feel like getting into (the exact frequency of left-wing vs right-wing changes of government, the exact connection to American industry, how much any changes in policy are out of line with stated policy [a politician campaigning to nationalize an industry is obviously more likely to do that then someone who doesn't campaign on that, but not having that stated policy doesn't mean you're influenced]).

 

The only substantial response I have is to

 

16 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

As far as Anez goes, she did illegally seize power, and the feeling is that there can't be a trial because we will find who backed that illegal seizure of power. Imagine if, say, the government had not reached consensus and shut down, and Donald Trump declared himself president in January 2021, only to be overthrown by a populist movement, and to have Russia declare the prosecution of him a political witch hunt.

Honestly I disagree about her succession being illegal, and in any case I don't think it's cut and dried that it was illegal. Also, even if there were a trial I'm not sure how that would show anything about the particular choices on one day of various political actors to proceed with one process vs another. (If they really are in the pocket of the US, as it were, I'm not sure what you're going to find. They met with some US officials?)

 

I once again think it's relevant to point out that it's not just the US who's said her trial seems anti-democratic, but also the EU, both some Bolivian and international human rights organizations, and 21 former Latin American presidents. So to respond to your metaphor, if Russia and the EU, both US and international human rights groups, and a bunch of former North American presidents said that Donald Trump was being tried as a political witch hunt, then yes I would give those claims some credence! Which brings us to another issue is that you chose a fairly leading example, as Trump is clearly guilty of breaking all sorts of business rules, political rules, and trying to execute a coup. If the EU and a bunch of international rights group said that Donald Trump being on trial for things was a witch hunt, then ... I am very confused.

 

Or put another way, the example you gave is "what if a clearly guilty person was on trial and then one single clearly deceitful government said it was a witch hunt" in which case the answer is "then that's nonsense, because as stated the person is clearly guilty". (Yes you could have the belief that Anez is clearly guilty, but since I don't agree the metaphor won't do much for me.)

[Fraggle Underdark]

This is purely meant to be lighthearted and I myself am half of the reason there's been so much discussion of Anez, I just found the situation funny

 

[Zagadka]

4 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

Honestly I disagree about her succession being illegal, and in any case I don't think it's cut and dried that it was illegal.

This is a broad question of what is technically legal, and what legalities are exploited. Not being a Bolivian constitutional lawyer, I am certainly not qualified to answer. I tend to get extremely angry with legal technicalities that are used to justify outright human rights abuses, because at heart I am an emotional person.

 

The fact of the matter is that the head of the armed forces "urged" Morales to resign, triggering a constitutional crisis, in which a right-wing opponent who campaigned on things such as reversing indigenous and peasant rights and returning control to foreign investment declared herself president.

 

 

4 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

Also, even if there were a trial I'm not sure how that would show anything about the particular choices on one day of various political actors to proceed with one process vs another. (If they really are in the pocket of the US, as it were, I'm not sure what you're going to find. They met with some US officials?)

At this point, a trial in either way would be a show and be immediately disputed and rejected by whichever side was decided against. I certainly don't expect that trial to turn over classified State Department memos outright declaring intent. Those will be declassified in 40 years to the surprise of no one, just like the State Department memos literally saying that the point of the Cuba blockade was to starve the people of Cuba into overthrowing Castro.

 

 

4 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

I once again think it's relevant to point out that it's not just the US who's said her trial seems anti-democratic, but also the EU, both some Bolivian and international human rights organizations, and 21 former Latin American presidents.

And again, it is a valid question as to exactly what their objections are, and who those international human rights organizations and Latin American presidents are. They likely have a very valid objection to a leader being held accountable for their actions as a general objection and precedent (which I am certainly questionable of for 21 former Latin American presidents).

 

Further, while the EU is something of an outside force, they are not immune to being human rights violators and behind autocratic regimes themselves. If "The West" objects strongly in lockstep, it is not necessarily an unquestionable force.

 

 

4 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

So to respond to your metaphor, if Russia and the EU, both US and international human rights groups, and a bunch of former North American presidents said that Donald Trump was being tried as a political witch hunt, then yes I would give those claims some credence!

I wouldn't. I would look at the actual situation.

 

 

4 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

Which brings us to another issue is that you chose a fairly leading example, as Trump is clearly guilty of breaking all sorts of business rules, political rules, and trying to execute a coup. If the EU and a bunch of international rights group said that Donald Trump being on trial for things was a witch hunt, then ... I am very confused.

The question here is legal technicalities and the rather obvious precedent of prosecuting a political opponent. Donald Trump would obviously be very vocal about being persecuted, and he may not have technically violated a law in declaring himself president. Would that stop Democrats in the United States from screaming about Russian collusion and interference?

 

Again, I am generally unconcerned about legal technicalities when a right wing person declares themselves president of a country and issues a decree declaring that the military will hunt down opposition. That may be entirely unreasonable and unrealistic on my side, but... again, I will put "what is right and just" over "what is legal" every time.
 

And as a corollary to that, it may be right and just for Morales to resign as a response to popular protest and economic issues. It is not right and just for him to resign from threats from the military and for an unelected political opponent to declare themselves president promising future fair elections that never came because they were deposed by an even larger popular movement.

[Fraggle Underdark]

3 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

This is a broad question of what is technically legal, and what legalities are exploited. Not being a Bolivian constitutional lawyer, I am certainly not qualified to answer. I tend to get extremely angry with legal technicalities that are used to justify outright human rights abuses, because at heart I am an emotional person.

 

The fact of the matter is that the head of the armed forces "urged" Morales to resign, triggering a constitutional crisis, in which a right-wing opponent who campaigned on things such as reversing indigenous and peasant rights and returning control to foreign investment declared herself president.

I have zero comment on her policies.

 

4 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

And again, it is a valid question as to exactly what their objections are, and who those international human rights organizations and Latin American presidents are. They likely have a very valid objection to a leader being held accountable for their actions as a general objection and precedent (which I am certainly questionable of for 21 former Latin American presidents).

 

Further, while the EU is something of an outside force, they are not immune to being human rights violators and behind autocratic regimes themselves. If "The West" objects strongly in lockstep, it is not necessarily an unquestionable force.
 

...
 

I wouldn't [give international claims of injustice credence]. I would look at the actual situation.

I definitely agree that it's fair to look at motivations of all actors in all cases, and that multiple countries can sometimes work together in a corrupt endeavor. At the same time, it's relevant partial information if multiple (roughly) independent entities come to the same conclusion.

 

I do think it can be dangerous to do a blanket dismissal of large numbers of sources as being biased/useless, and that it has to be done on an individual basis. Or at least there has to be clear evidence it's just copies of the same conclusion. Otherwise it reminds me of AlwaysTrumpers dismissing every single official audit and finding that the 2020 election was fair.

 

14 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

The question here is legal technicalities and the rather obvious precedent of prosecuting a political opponent. Donald Trump would obviously be very vocal about being persecuted, and he may not have technically violated a law in declaring himself president. Would that stop Democrats in the United States from screaming about Russian collusion and interference?

Are we talking about a case of Russian interference, like was shown in 2016? (Though there was no collusion.) Also I'm highly confident he would be breaking laws to declare himself president, or if not then at least expectations of having a shred of decency (that are so basic no one thought to make laws for them).

 

There's no trick to any of this, no simple rule. My opinion is people should be treated fairly and held accountable for the things they do. If they are prosecuted out of political revenge, that's wrong. If they are not prosecuted out of political protection, that's wrong. If people are motivated by profit to claim someone acted illegally, that's wrong. If they are motivated by blind ideology to say someone acted illegally, that's wrong. If they are motivated to claim someone acted illegally because they honestly think they acted illegally, then that's right.

 

I'm not making any big claim about the case of Anez except that on the merits it sounded like she proceeded on a reasonable interpretation of Bolivia's constitution. We're clearly going to disagree on that, which is just fine, but I'm not making any bigger case than that or think there's any golden metric that solves this in a simple way.

[Zagadka]

5 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

I have zero comment on her policies.

 

I definitely agree that it's fair to look at motivations of all actors in all cases, and that multiple countries can sometimes work together in a corrupt endeavor. At the same time, it's relevant partial information if multiple (roughly) independent entities come to the same conclusion.

I believe we have run this entirely off-topic conversation though its course, and I don't think we will get anything productive out of rehashing it. I don't trust or like literally anyone involved, and my concern will be weighted to the indigenous and worker groups being targeted by Anez and her Western backers, though I recognize that Morales failed in serving them.

 

 

5 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

Are we talking about a case of Russian interference, like was shown in 2016? (Though there was no collusion.)

2016 is a mess, and trying to decode it is a mess. Whether there is collusion or Russian interference, how much that interference had an impact on anything, and how much of that discourse boils down to obvious bots on Twitter and Democrat (Clinton) loyalists reflexively declaring any dissent or statement that Hillary ran a horrid campaign and deserved to lose to an unqualified game show host is a Russian bot is entirely up to perception, and probably how much the perceiver is on Twitter.

 

 

5 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

Also I'm highly confident he would be breaking laws to declare himself president

Well, we are beyond hypotheticals deployed as symbolism at this point.

 

 

5 minutes ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

There's no trick to any of this, no simple rule. My opinion is people should be treated fairly and held accountable for the things they do. If they are prosecuted out of political revenge, that's wrong. If they are not prosecuted out of political protection, that's wrong.

It is also possible to be prosecuted out of political revenge that is entirely justified, and that ignoring the transgressions against democracy serves to defend and bolster the claims of the people who transgressed against democracy.

 

But I certainly would not expect a country that has an inherently undemocratic government that can elect a president who lost the popular vote and routinely outright ignores overwhelming popular opinion at the behest of corporate donors and lobbyists while being the primary arms supplier to over 70% of the world's dictatorships, decades long occupier of foreign land and stealer of foreign money, sponsor of literal death squads, and holdout on being subject to international law to have an extremely strong claim to defending democracy.

[Fraggle Underdark]

46 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

Well, we are beyond hypotheticals deployed as symbolism at this point.

Agreed

 

46 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

It is also possible to be prosecuted out of political revenge that is entirely justified, and that ignoring the transgressions against democracy serves to defend and bolster the claims of the people who transgressed against democracy.

By "political revenge" I was referring to cases that aren't justified when revenge isn't a factor. (Including cases where someone technically broke a law but it wouldn't normally have been enforced.)

 

46 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

But I certainly would not expect a country that has an inherently undemocratic government that can elect a president who lost the popular vote and routinely outright ignores overwhelming popular opinion at the behest of corporate donors and lobbyists while being the primary arms supplier to over 70% of the world's dictatorships, decades long occupier of foreign land and stealer of foreign money, sponsor of literal death squads, and holdout on being subject to international law to have an extremely strong claim to defending democracy.

The electoral college is a weird holdover from horse-drawn carriage days which should be removed, the extent to which most policies are inspired by popular opinion or rich donors is pretty open to interpretation, and most countries who have the ability to occupy foreign land and steal foreign money have done so at some point. That's not to excuse that! It's just to disagree with casting one country as unusually unethical when they do the same thing with power that the large majority of countries do with power.

 

Honest question, how many countries have or have sponsored death squads? I'd imagine it's a large proportion but it's a guess.

 

-----

 

To be clear, I'm not really saying this out of pro-US sentiment. Rather it's because I think people, all throughout history and the Earth, have a strong tendency to hunt for people and nations to be the bad guys. And then have a plan that's mostly focused on stopping, hindering, or toppling the bad guys. For example Britain and France are the bad guys, or Germany is the bad guy, or China is a the bad guy, or Japan is the bad guy, or the US is the bad guy. That's not to say any of those countries haven't done terrible things. But it focuses effort an a particular nexus of cultural and political identity that occupies a spot within broader power dynamics. And most of the bad things that get done are a result of a nexus of power dynamics like that, in combination with the cultural and legal safeguards in place (or not) against that power being used in certain ways. And because that's the cause of most bad things, that's where the solution will lie. My belief is that what we need is to make sure those nexuses of power have good safeguards (cultural or otherwise) against their abuse, regardless of where those nexuses arise, how long they've existed, or what an individual nexus has done in the past.

 

Or put more simply, I think the solution is some combination of making sure that power remains relatively distributed and/or having more safeguards for when power becomes concentrated. But given that power has become concentrated, there is no point critiquing power for merely being power. We can try to reduce that power, and check that power, but when a critique is agnostic to how similar power nexuses usually behave then we don't end up with meaningful data about the level of safeguards in place (e.g. a culture's morals).

 

One of the worst failures of this kind of thinking (and I'm not necessarily saying you're doing this) is that people so often think that underdogs will act different when they get power. They might, but that requires looking at the safeguards, and those safeguards aren't tested when there is no power they are checking. For example people of the Jewish faith have endured long and severe repression, and for most of history have not had a state. Naturally they did not invade anyone when they had no army, and they did not abuse government power when they did not have it. But then some people of the Jewish faith decided to claim land and make a state, and gained governmental power, and began to behave as most human beings do when they have power: sometimes abusing it. Prejudice about any group of people being better or worse than any other is wrong. But that applies in both ways: no group, no matter how powerless or repressed, has any magical safeguards in place to avoid abuse of power if they gain power. (They may or may not have more safeguards than other groups, but none of that is magical, it is all for particular reasons and none of it is actually tested in the absence of power.)

 

Further, many (though not all) of the greatest atrocities, at least in recent times, have been done by groups that were long seen as the underdogs, by themselves and others. Germany and Japan in WW2 for example. Many of these atrocities were seen as getting revenge on stronger enemies (e.g. Jewish and Chinese people, to a lesser extent the Allied powers of WW1). This isn't a claim that underdogs are any worse than any other group, but it is a claim that nothing in particular makes them better either. The only blanket statement that can be made about abuse of power is that people abuse power less if they have it less.

 

This might sound strange but this is in fact the usual reason I defend the US in debates. I agree it's had more abuses of international power than most countries in the last 70 years, because it's been one of the only superpowers for the last 70 years. And with more power comes more abuse. It's not that I'm pro-abuse, I'm very against it. But I think the way to address that is to examine the safeguards in place, to strengthen them in the US and everywhere else, and to not get sidetracked with the common mistake of thinking there's anything special about a country with a ton of power who abuses it more than countries with less power. Otherwise we risk just replacing that nexus with a similar nexus that does the same thing or worse things, because the safeguards of that nexus are weaker or no stronger.