#European Union and NATO countries | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

zvaigzdelasas · 4 months

Text

A painful reality check shows the 600-mile-long Ukrainian-Russian front in a figurative and literal freeze, draining Ukrainian resources and lives without much prospect for change in the foreseeable future. The much-anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive of the past six months exacted a huge cost in casualties and matériel, but barely nudged the front lines. Ukraine’s top military commander has said the fight is at a “stalemate” — a notion deemed taboo not long ago — and only an unlikely technological breakthrough by one side or the other could break it. [...]

The way things are going, “Ukraine will for the foreseeable future harbor Europe’s most dangerous geopolitical fault line,” [...] an endless conflict that deepens Russia’s alienation from the West, enshrines Putinism and delays Ukraine’s integration into Europe. That, at least, is the bleak prognosis if victory in the war continues to be defined in territorial terms, specifically the goal of driving Russia out of all the Ukrainian lands it occupied in 2014 and over the past 22 months, including Crimea and a thick wedge of southeastern Ukraine, altogether about a fifth of Ukraine’s sovereign territory. But regaining territory is the wrong way to imagine the best outcome. True victory for Ukraine is to rise from the hell of the war as a strong, independent, prosperous and secure state, firmly planted in the West.[...]

the only way to find out if Mr. Putin is serious about a cease-fire, and whether one can be worked out, is to give it a try. Halting Russia well short of its goals and turning to the reconstruction and modernization of Ukraine would be lasting tributes to the Ukrainians who have made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the existence of their nation. And no temporary armistice would forever preclude Ukraine from recovering all of its land.

With U.S. and European aid to Ukraine now in serious jeopardy, the Biden administration and European officials are quietly shifting their focus from supporting Ukraine’s goal of total victory over Russia to improving its position in an eventual negotiation to end the war, according to a Biden administration official and a European diplomat based in Washington. Such a negotiation would likely mean giving up parts of Ukraine to Russia. The White House and Pentagon publicly insist there is no official change in administration policy — that they still support Ukraine’s aim of forcing Russia’s military completely out of the country. [...]

The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. “That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,” said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record.[...]

“Those discussions [about peace talks] are starting, but [the administration] can’t back down publicly because of the political risk” to Biden, said a congressional official who is familiar with the administration’s thinking and who was granted anonymity to speak freely.[...]

The European diplomat based in Washington said that the European Union is also raising the threat of expediting Ukraine’s membership in NATO to “put the Ukrainians in the best situation possible to negotiate” with Moscow. That is a flashpoint for Putin, who is believed to be mainly interested in a strategic deal with Washington under which Ukraine will not enter NATO. [...]

For most of the conflict GOP critics have accused Biden of moving too slowly to arm the Ukrainians with the most sophisticated weaponry, such as M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, long-range precision artillery and F-16 fighter jets. In an interview in July Zelenskyy himself said the delays “provided Russia with time to mine all our lands and build several lines of defense.” [...]

The Ukrainians themselves are engaged in what is becoming a very public debate about how long they can hold out against Putin. With Ukraine running low on troops as well as weapons, Zelenskyy’s refusal to consider any fresh negotiations with Moscow is looking more and more politically untenable at home. The Ukrainian president, seeking to draft another half million troops, is facing rising domestic opposition from his military commander in chief, Gen. Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, and the mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko.

So what was all that for then [27 Dec 23]

436 notes · View notes

txttletale · 9 months

Note

yo i really like your content and agree with you on most things but i don't really know what you mean with that last one. my friends from ukraine both oppose the war's existence but would rather not be violently annexed by an imperial power so of course they, with little other options, support resistance efforts.

it's really hard for me to understand what you're going for because if ukraine stopped fighting back it'd just get taken by russia. maybe i just have bad brainfog, but it's hard to understand what you're asking us to do and believe. should we try and take out both the russian and american imperialist powers at once? but that's unrealistic and unlikely to happen in the near future, no matter how much i personally support it, which i do.

i guess my question is, what's an actual realistic thing we should support in the meantime? we can't just pretend that somehow revolution will take out both american and russian imperialist interests immediately, so. it's like, well yes we should have a better world playing by better rules, but how do we do the right thing when we are bound by the rules now.

i have friends who have family who died in the war, and sometimes it feels like bloggers i otherwise trust say things that sound suspiciously close to "ukraine should stop this pointless fighting and give up." which i am aware isn't your intention, and i want to be an effective anti imperialist and have the correct and informed opinions on stuff like this, but i am having a very hard time understanding what you are trying to say.

i really promise i am not a concern troll or nato apologist or anything, i just also have personally been struggling with what to support and how to save innocent lives. i hate war and i wish we could magically create a situation in which ukraine didn't have to rely on horrible things for self defense. i just don't know what to do or believe because my friends would rightfully hate me if i said ukraine should stop defending itself.

i mean, first off: don't worry, you obviously don't sound like a concern troll or a nato apologist. this is an eminently reasonable question -- healed's law strikes again. & i certainly don't blame you for worrying that marxist-leninists are apologists for russian imperialism, because unfortunately many self-proclaimed marxist-leninists have been deceived by the frankly paper-thin figleaf of 'denazificaiton'--even as putin, puppet of the russian bourgeoisie denounces lenin & the bolsheviks & the soviet union with every speech he makes. it sucks!

first of all, i think the important thing here and the central point of disagreement is on what constitutes 'ukraine'. liberals and nationalists alike consider nations to be fundamentally one whole: that all the people of ukraine together constitute 'ukraine', and so 'ukraine as a whole' has consistent interests, and acts as a one--the ukrainian government represents this unitary ukraine armed forces of ukraine fight for this ukraine.

but the marxist analysis of the nation is completely different. from the marxist perspective, the nation is split across class lines. ukraine is not 'ukrainians', but in fact 'the ukrainian working class' and 'the ukrainian bourgeoisie'. now, of course, there are further contradictions even within these classes--there is a faction of pro-Russian bourgeoisie, and a faction of pro-Western bourgeoisie. but remember, we must apply the same analysis to these countries too: the 'pro-Russian' Ukrainian bourgeoisie do not wish to submit to Russia's working class, but to their oligarchs. the 'pro-Western' Ukrainian bourgeoisie are not opening the nation's economy to the European and USAmerican working class, but to their bourgeoisie. so the bourgeoisie are, in every case--even when split among themselves--only ever in league with other sectors of the bourgeoisie.

so, through this lens, how do we see the war in ukraine? well, i think that the union of communists in ukraine must have a far better handle on this than i, because they're living through it: so i will quote their analysis and then elucidate on it in relation to your question.

The puppet regime in Ukraine participates in this war in the interests of Ukrainian oligarchs, who have made themselves completely dependent on big capital of the West and NATO, who have turned the Ukrainian army into an advanced military unit of the Western bourgeoisie. The war is not about "the Ukrainian nation," not about "the Ukrainian language and culture," not even about "European values". It is a war for the united interests of the Ukrainian and international bourgeoisie, which coincide in their desire to destroy the economic and political power of the Russian bourgeoisie. No interests or rights of Ukrainian workers are protected by this war. Both Ukrainian and Russian workers in this war have only the right and obligation to go to the front and die so that one group of the world bourgeoisie defeats the other and gains more monopoly rights to oppress the workers, both in their own country and in the defeated countries. […] For the working class of Ukraine, this imperialist war has the most tragic consequences. It lies on the shoulders of the workers the role of "cannon fodder" and the inevitable deaths in the fighting, mass impoverishment, unemployment, complete restrictions of rights and freedoms for the sake of protecting the interests of the Ukrainian big bourgeoisie, the oligarchs and the interests of the Western bourgeoisie in destroying and robbing Russia and seizing its natural resources. This will inevitably be accompanied by the destruction and seizure of Ukrainian industrial and natural resources, including in the case of Russia's success. The same fate awaits the vast majority of the Ukrainian petty bourgeoisie. The big bourgeoisie has already bought its children out of the war and taken them abroad, just as it took its capitals out. But that is not the main point: the big bourgeoisie is profiting from the war under Zelensky, just as it profited under Poroshenko: stealing finances, making money from reselling weapons, supplying the army with uniforms, food, repair work, humanitarian aid, etc. In war the bourgeoisie makes billions of dollars, while the mobilized people have to be equipped and fed by relatives, friends and volunteers – which is clearly not enough. As in peacetime, but even more brazenly, the bourgeoisie is getting rich off the bones of the working class!

—Union of Communists of Ukraine, On the War and the tasks of the working class

that is to say--the russian army, which is funded by the russian bourgeoisie, is fighting to establish the exclusive right of that russian bourgeoisie to oppress and exploit the ukrainian people. meanwhile, the ukrainian army, funded by the ukrainian and western bourgeoisie more broadly, are fighting to maintain the exclusive right of the ukrainian and western to oppress and exploit the ukrainian people. already, ukrainian public assets are being put up in a fire sale for western buyers--(and of course, should russia's offensive have been as succesful as they'd hoped and this war already over, they'd be doing much the same thing for the benefit of buyers among the russian bourgeoisie).

this is what is meant by 'inter-imperialist' war. it's easy to say 'well, the ukrainian army isn't imperialist--it's fighting for the nation's independence!' but in terms of real economic interests there is no 'the nation'. the ukrainian army isn't fighting for the ukrainian working class (which of course includes themselves!)--the government that pays them and the states that equip them wouldn't do so out of any sense of interest in the well-being of the working class. we can see this clearly as the western imperialist powers now start to equip the ukrainian army with depleted uranium shells, which will poison swathes of ukrainian land and cause sickness and death among the people this army purports to be fighting for. the goal of the ukrainian state and army isn't to protect any working class people--only to protect its total right to the economic exploitation of those people.

it's this that the ukrainian state is afraid of when it fights not to cede territory, not the (surely real, to be clear!) brutality from the russian state that would face the inhabitants of any such ceded territory. in fact, funding nazi groups that operated in those areas before the war and will surely continue to operate afterwards, the ukrainian govenrment makes it clear that brutality against the inhabitants of its eastern provinces alone does not phase it, so long as the ukrainian bourgeoisie (& their western bourgeoisie patrons) continue to be the ones profiting off the region's people and resources.

elsewhere in the article the UCU observe the same thing that can be observed by those outside of ukraine by listening to the words of zelenskyy and the ukrainian government's allies--that even the goal of 'protecting its people' [read: protecting exclusive economic/extractive access to those people] has been sidelined by the dream of a total or partial obliteration of the russian bourgeoisie entirely--not for any moral or anti-imperialist reason, but simply so that the ukrainian/western bourgeoisie no longer have competition.

[...] the goals of warfare are changing. If at the first stage of the civil conflict the Ukrainian regime aimed to restore state control over the Ukrainian territories, where this control was lost, then at the second stage it aimed to destroy Russia as a condition for the existence of Ukraine.

—ibid.

so--now that i've really dug into the precise nature of this war and why it's being waged on both sides, i'll answer some of your points directly:

if ukraine stopped fighting back it'd just get taken by russia "ukraine should stop this pointless fighting and give up."

both of these positions, both the one you hold yourself and the one you worry about others expressing, assume that what the ukrainian armed forces with NATO backing and full-throated embrace of fascist paramilitaries is doing constitutes 'ukraine' 'fighting back' against 'russia'. but it doesn't--it represents the ukrainian bourgeoisie fighting back against the russian bourgeoisie.

so, the big question--do i think that the ukrainian proletariat should abandon armed resistance against the russian invasion? absolutely not!

genuine popular resistance against the russian invasion is heroic and commendable--i am under no belief whatsoever that in the face of imperialist war the ukrainian people should not arm themselves and fight against the imperialists. i just reject the framing of the actual war as prosecuted as constituting this, because, to go back to what i've already established, there is not in fact one 'ukraine' but two--only one of which constitutes in a mieaningful sense the ukrainian people. i don't believe (and neither do the UCU, whose analysis i base mine on somewhat) that 'the war' as you ponder 'supporting' constitutes the ukrainian proletariat arming themselves or fighting against imperialism on their own behalf, but rather being armed by the bourgeoisie and fighting on their behalf.

and obviously i'm not an idiot who's blind to the actual numerial and material realities. the communist, anti-imperialist movement in ukraine, just like in most of the world, is completely dwarfed by imperialism and its footsoldiers. 'the ukrainian proletariat as self-armed acting organization rising up and challenging both imperialisms and freeing itself from both sets of bourgeoisie' is not something that's gonna happen tomorrow, and it's not an immediately actionable plan--no ukrainian communist can wake up tomorrow and say 'well, today i shall hit the big proletarian revolution button'.

the realities are that as the meeting ground between two imperialisms, ukrainian communists have to make decisions about which one they can most ably fight, might need to temporarily align themselves with or allow themselves to benefit from the ukrainian bourgeoise state--but never support it. like any bourgeoise state, a communist should know the ukrainian state is an enemy of the proletariat. yes, the pressing material realities on the ground might well make cooperation with that bourgeoise state the best temporary option--but 'cooperation' should never mean 'support' or 'loyalty', and should be done only tactically with ultimately loyalties remaining above all else with the working class.

in fact, refusing to offer the government and army a show of support and valorization is a key element of creating the conditions--radicalization, agitation--that would allow the proletariat to effectively rise up and truly combat imperialism, rather than choose under which imperialist heel they would rather be ground into dust. don't support an end to the war on either imperialist bloc's terms, but rather on proletarian terms--understand that the state of ukraine is not on the side of the ukrainian people, except tangentially, in individual moments of necessary alliance. raise awareness of the true war, the class war, and resist the ukrainian state's claims to stand with the people when it pursues the interests of the bourgeoisie.

tldr: the anti-imperialist position is not that the ukrainian proletariat should not be fighting, or that their fight is not worth supporting. the anti-imperialist action, therefore, is to draw the most awareness possible to this division within 'ukraine' among the working class themselves, make them aware of the realities of the economic condition. this is of course the foremost anti-imperialist and communist task across the entire world, because it is only through creating organizations of the working class that will fight for the working class can international imperialism be dfeated.

i'll leave this answer off by adding what the UCU said about this very topic in the same statement i've been quoting:

We understand the complexity and danger of these tasks, which inevitably cause repression on the part of the bourgeois political regimes. That is why workers' and communist organizations will need to develop illegal forms of class struggle along with legal ones in order to set and implement such tasks. The UCU has been forced to conduct its work in illegal forms since 2014. Many workers' and communist organizations may consider these antiwar tasks impossible because of their organizational weakness and lack of influence on the working class. However, historical experience shows that a correct and honest formulation of the tasks of the working class in conditions of war – real, not momentary tasks – may not yield success immediately, but will yield gains as the revolutionary situation intensifies. Since the task of destroying capitalist social relations is an international task, the international coordination of workers' and communist parties' actions, including the joint elaboration of tasks for the struggle against the imperialist war of the twenty-first century for the sake of uniting the international struggle against this war, for a communist reorganization of society and world peace, is becoming increasingly important. Proletarians of all countries, unite!

#ask #long post #i hope this helps! i entirely understand your worries & concerns & i genuinely hoep this elucidates something about the situation for you

422 notes · View notes

odinsblog · 1 month

Text

“I sometimes hear people say that Russia was forced to attack Ukraine because Ukrainians wanted to join NATO. Those people also often say that NATO promised it would not expand to the East, but later broke this promise. And this, allegedly, is the reason why Russia keeps attacking its neighbors.

If you have ever heard people say something like that, please know that this is not true. And it will take me less than five minutes to prove with facts that both statements are false.

First, let's have a look at the timeline of events.

Russia first invaded Ukraine in February 2014 by occupying the Crimea peninsula. At that moment, Ukraine was a neutral country by law and expressed no intention of joining NATO whatsoever. For instance, during the Revolution of Dignity, the protesters insisted on Ukraine joining the EU, not NATO. It was only in autumn 2014, after many months of war, that Ukraine abandoned neutrality.

So what came first? Russia attacking Ukraine, or Ukraine wanting to join NATO?

The answer is clear.

Had Russia not threatened Ukraine's existence, there would be no reason for our country to seek collective security. So please do not repeat the lie that, I quote, “Russia attacked because Ukraine wanted to join NATO,” end of quote. This does not correspond with the facts.

Now let's have a look at the story of NATO allegedly promising not to expand to the East.

If you ask people who say this, when exactly, such a promise was made and who made it, most of them will not be able to provide a clear answer. Spoiler, because no such promise has ever been made and the whole story is a Russian fairy tale.

Those more sophisticated will tell you that the promise was made to the President of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev. They may even refer to the 1990 U.S.-Soviet negotiations on the reunification of Germany. Again, let’s consider the timeline.

In summer 1990, when these talks were held, the Soviet analog of NATO, the Warsaw Pact, still existed. Its dissolution, let alone the Soviet Union's dissolution, was not on the cart. No one even talked about it or imagined it. It was only next year, in 1991 that the Warsaw Pact, and later the USSR, quite unexpectedly ceased to exist.

Now explain to me just how the very issue could be even discussed in the summer of 1990. It is not surprising that Mikhail Gorbachev later himself refuted this falsehood. When asked by a journalist whether any such promise had been made, he said this was a myth.

Now let's look at it from another perspective. How could NATO even promise anything like that?

Initially, it is not NATO that decides which country joins it. Countries themselves need to want it. And actually, the membership criteria are very difficult. It requires a lot of political will and reform. All the NATO members that joined it after 1991, really wanted to be part of it.

Their people wanted this.

And here comes the most uncomfortable question for Russia: Why were all of the nations that had been part of the Soviet Union or the Socialist bloc so eager and desperate to join NATO?

Well, maybe because in three decades, Russia has invaded or incited war in at least three of its neighbors, Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine. At the same time, Russia has not dared to invade any of its NATO neighbors.

Do you see the pattern?

The only reason for countries in the vicinity of Russia to seek NATO membership has always been and remains the need to protect their people from Russia.

Therefore, Moscow has only itself to blame for the fact that all of the central European and Baltic nations ran away from it and hid under the NATO umbrella as quickly as they could.

Do not let Russian officials or their supporters in the West fool you. Russia attacked Ukraine not because NATO expanded to the East, or because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Russia attacked because it denies Ukraine's right to exist and wants to conquer our land and kill our people. It is through our shared strength that we can and must stop Russia and put an end to its aggressive plans for the rest of Europe.

For this to happen, keep supporting Ukraine and don't buy Russian lies.”

👉🏿 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

👉🏿 https://www.tumblr.com/odinsblog/686191406300184576/appeasement-does-not-work-appeasement-didnt

👉🏿 https://www.tumblr.com/odinsblog/684530801484922880/believing-putins-reasons-for-invading-ukraine

👉🏿 https://www.tumblr.com/odinsblog/742088177664344064/violated-agreements-1991-russia-cosigns

#politics #ukraine #russia #dmytro kuleba #russian propaganda #nato #russian colonialism #nato expansion #russian imperialism #mikhail gorbachev #russia is a terrorist state #warsaw pact #russian expansion #russian fascism ☭#soviet union #tankies #vladimir putin is a war criminal #baltic states #🇺🇦

82 notes · View notes

apicturewithasmile · 2 months

Text

Слава Україні 🇺🇦

Today is February 24th. Two years ago Russia started its full scale invasion of Ukraine after already being at war in the East for 8 years prior, which was mostly ignored by the world and paved the way for Russian imperialism to attack the entire country of Ukraine.

Russia's actions involve countless war crimes and genocidal tactics, they destroy civilian infrastructure und houses, they kill civilians, torture and rape, they deport children to Russian territory. They do everything to destroy the Ukrainian nation. A nation that is a peaceful democracy since 1991, that continuously has proven that it does not want to be in "the Russian world". Ukraine wants freedom, Ukraine wants to be part of the European Union, Ukraine wants to determine its own future without occupation.

Every day Ukrainians are fighting not just for themselves. If Russia is not stopped and pushed back, it will go further. It will attack EU and NATO countries. In just a few years they could attack the Baltic states, Poland, Finland. They might already be planning a coup in Moldova as soon as next week.

This is the part where I tell you to donate to the Ukrainian armed forces. You can do so for example via United 24, the fundraising platform of the President of Ukraine. Call and write to your representatives and ask them for more support, ESPECIALLY if you're US American and your representatives are Republicans! Check if there's a support rally near you today and go there. Stay informed, talk to your friends and family about it. Help!!!!

Героям слава!!!

#Ukraine #Russian invasion #Russian war against Ukraine

67 notes · View notes

republicansaredomesticterrorists · 2 months

Text

These MAGAts were once conservatives who despised Russia and now they want to fellate Trump and Putin.

NATO isn’t just a defensive alliance, these are major trading partners and allies on a host of issues linked to preserving geopolitical stability and general world order, the rule of law.

Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO but wants to join. Some of you may question supporting Ukraine or even say it’s race based. Ukraine serves as a buffer between our western allies and our greatest geopolitical rival, Russia. More importantly Ukraine is one of the world’s largest suppliers of wheat and more to the point the largest individual supplier to the third world. If Russia were to knock out Ukraine there would be widespread famine across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Accompanying this would be worldwide trade disruption and more than likely a worldwide depression leading to more wars over resources and trade.

Demagogues like Trump know very little about what they are pontificating on. He has no knowledge of the big picture. Businessmen who enter politics rarely do. It’s not as simplistic as a family business (the Trump Organization) with a balance sheet. World affairs are 4-D chess with countless intertwined variables. Trump repeatedly shows how he doesn’t have a clue about how NATO operates no matter how many times it’s explained to him by policy advisers, the press, and world leaders. He refers to NATO members as being delinquent or in default which is simply not true. They haven’t borrowed money from anyone nor do they owe NATO. Each member voluntary pledges to spend 2% of GDP on defense *if it is economically possible at the time. It’s not carved in stone and is written as an aspirational goal only. The US does not have to pay more if another country isn’t able to spend 2% on itself in any given year. Further NATO members have standardized military equipment, much of which is purchased from the US. If a country is removed from NATO then they won’t be purchasing as much or at all from US defense contractors and our economy would take a big negative hit.

Republicans have been fed lies about NATO since Trump’s run for office started in 2015. Germany is a major player in NATO. Trump and the American far-right NAZI movement have long despised German politicians, like Merkel for example, for their suppression of Nazism since the end of the 2nd World War. These same far-right Neo-Nazi Republicans have also been fed a steady diet of lies about how unfair it is that the US, in their eyes unfairly, over pays the UN and they have been told to equate this to NATO which has a completely different structure and purpose. Neo-Nazi’s have a million and one bizarre conspiracy theories about the UN and now Trump MAGAts have linked this to our greatest ally NATO. One could write a book on the far-rights conspiracy theories about the UN which include replacing white people, secret governing societies, alien overlords, transfer of wealth to the 3rd world, forced same sex marriages, sterilization, UN military takeover of the U.S.,etc.

Threatening to surrender our NATO allies to Russia and/or withdrawing from NATO are the ramblings of a poorly educated, uninformed, lunatic who has no clue about foreign policy. The resulting worldwide chaos and economic collapse that would follow would cost a million times more than the pitiful few dollars MAGA morons think it would save. Try getting favorable trade deals from a resulting hostile European Union after you signed their collective death warrants.

#republican assholes #traitor trump #republican hypocrisy #crooked donald #traitor #republican values #republican family values #resist #Trump is dumb as fuck #maga republicans are dum as fuck #nato #russian agression #Putin’s expansion

57 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 4 months

Text

From Taiwan and Finland in January to Croatia and Ghana in December, one of the largest combined electorates in history will vote for new governments in 2024. This should be a cause of celebration and a vindication of the power of the ballot box. Yet this coming year is likely to see one of the starkest erosions of liberal democracy since the end of the Cold War. At their worst, the overall results could end up as a bloodbath or, marginally less bleakly, as a series of setbacks.

At first glance, the stats are impressive. Forty national elections will take place, representing 41 percent of the world’s population and 42 percent of its gross domestic product. Some will be more consequential than others. Some will be more unpredictable than others. (You can strike Russia and Belarus from that list.) One or two may produce uplifting results.

However, in the United States and Europe, the two regions that are the cradles of democracy—or at least, that used to project themselves as such—the year ahead is set to be bracing.

It is no exaggeration to say that the structures established after World War II, and which have underpinned the Western world for eight decades, will be under threat if former U.S. President Donald Trump wins a second term in November. Whereas his first period in the White House might be regarded as a psychodrama, culminating in the paramilitary assault on Congress shortly after his defeat, this time around, his menace will be far more professional and penetrating.

European diplomats in Washington fear a multiplicity of threats—the imposition of blanket tariffs, also known as a trade war; the sacking of thousands of public officials and their replacement with politicized loyalists; and the withdrawal of remaining support for Ukraine and the undermining of NATO. For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the return of Trump would be manna from heaven. Expect some form of provocation from the Kremlin in the Baltic states or another state bordering Russia to test the strength of Article 5, the mutual defense clause of the Western alliance.

More broadly, a Trump victory would arguably mark the final dismantling of the credibility of Western liberal democracies. From India to South Africa and from Brazil to Indonesia, countries variously called middle powers, pivot countries, multi-aligned states—or, now less fashionably, the global south—will continue the trend of picking and choosing their alliances, seeing moral equivalence in the competitive bids on offer.

The greatest effect that a Trump return could have would be on Europe, accelerating the onward march of the alt right or far right across the continent. Yet that trend will have gained momentum long before Americans go to the polls. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz are looking over their shoulders as the second wave of populism affects the conduct of government.

The wedge issue that is threatening all moderate parties is immigration, just as it did in 2015, when former German Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed in more than 1 million refugees from the Middle East in what is now seen as the first wave of Europe’s immigration crisis. This time around, the arguments propagated by the AfD (the far-right Alternative for Germany party), Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, and similar groups across the continent have permeated the political mainstream.

The past 12 months have seen European Union decision-making constantly undermined by Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary, particularly further support for Ukraine. For the moment, he stands alone, but he is likely to be joined by others, starting with the newly returned Prime Minister Robert Fico in Slovakia. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has struck a tacit deal with Brussels, remaining loyal on supporting Ukraine (against her instincts and previous statements) in return for effectively being given carte blanche in Italy’s domestic politics.

In September, Austria seems almost certain to vote in a coalition of the far right and the conservatives. A country that has (ever since the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1955) prized its neutrality and been keen to ingratiate itself with Moscow has already been uncomfortable giving full-scale support to Kyiv. We can expect that support to soon be scaled back.

One of the few countries with a center-left administration, Portugal, will see it join the pack of the right and far right when snap elections are held in March. The previous incumbent, the Socialist Party’s outgoing Prime Minister Antonio Costa, was forced to quit amid a corruption investigation.

The most explosive moment is likely to occur in June, with the elections to the European Parliament. This reshuffling of the Euro-pack, which happens once every four years, was always seen in the United Kingdom as an opportunity to behave even more frivolously than usual. In 2014, the British electorate, in its inestimable wisdom, put Nigel Farage and his U.K. Independence Party in first place, setting in train a series of events that, two years later, led to the referendum to leave the EU.

Having seen the damage wrought by Brexit, voters in the remaining 27 EU member states are not angling for their countries to go it alone. However, many will use the opportunity to express their antipathy to mainstream politics by opting for a populist alternative. Some might see it as a low-risk option, believing that the European parliament does not count for much.

In so doing, they would be deluding themselves. It is entirely possible that the various forces of the far right could emerge as the single biggest bloc. This might not lead to a change in the composition of the European Commission (the diminished mainstream groupings would still collectively hold a majority), but any such extremist upsurge will change the overall dynamics across Europe.

Far-right parties in charge of governments will see themselves emboldened to pursue ever more radical nativist policies. In countries in where they are junior members of ruling coalitions (such as in Sweden), they will apply further pressure on their more mainstream conservative partners to move in their direction.

Conversely, countries that saw a surprising resurgence of the mainstream in national elections this year are unlikely to see that trend maintained. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s success in staving off the right was achieved only by cutting a deal with Catalan separatists. This led to protests by Spanish nationalists and a situation that is anything but stable.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s victory in Poland was at least as remarkable because the far-right Law and Justice party (PiS) government had used its years in government to try to skew the media and the courts in its direction. Expect PiS gains in June.

The most alarming result of 2023 was the return to prominence, and the verge of power, of Geert Wilders. The Dutch elections provide a how-not-to guide for mainstream politicians. The willingness of the center-right party of the outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte to contemplate a coalition with Wilders’s Party for Freedom emboldened many voters who had assumed their vote would be disregarded.

In Europe’s biggest economy, Germany, the so-called firewall established by the main parties to refuse to govern with the AfD is beginning to fray. Already, the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is working with them in small municipalities. Friedrich Merz, the CDU leader, has dropped hints that such an option might not be out of the question at the regional level.

If the AfD gains the largest number of seats in the June European Parliament elections (opinion polls currently put it only marginally behind the CDU and ahead of all three parties in Scholz’s so-called traffic light coalition), then the momentum will change rapidly. It could go on to win three of the states in the former communist east—Thuringia, Saxony, and Brandenburg—next autumn. Germany would enter unchartered territory.

These dire predictions could end up being overblown. Mainstream parties in several countries may defy the doom merchants and emerge less badly than forecast. Given recent trends, however, optimism is thin on the ground.

There is one election, however, due to take place in the latter part of 2024 that could produce not just a centrist outcome, but one with a strong majority in its parliament. Britain, the country that left the heart of Europe, the island that until recently was run by a clown, could emerge as the lodestar for modern social democracy. The irony would be lost on no one.

79 notes · View notes

aroacebaker · 2 months

Text

Today it’s the 24th of February, 2 years after the full-scale war started in Ukraine. Most know that this isn’t completely out of the blue, since Crimea was invaded 10 years ago, but let’s go back even further.

During the first world war, Ukraine was torn to pieces, literally, it was occupied by Poland, Russia, France, anarchists, and the Whites, Kyiv changed hands over five times in a year, communication inside and outside the country was almost completely cut off.

This war eventually resulted in the Soviet Union occupying Ukraine. Due to this Ukrainian people fought in the Soviet army. At the end of the war Ukraine did gain some independence, for some decisions, such as being accepted into NATO as Ukraine, rather than as the Soviet Union.

On the 21st of January 300 000 Ukrainians lined themselves up between Kyiv and Lviv, forming a human chain for independence and on the 24th of August Ukraine declared itself independent from the Soviet Union.

In 2004 there were presidential elections between Yushchenko and Yanukovich, in which Yanukovich won, however the results were falsified, and the Ukrainians protested for 2 months, this is known as the Orange revolution. The protestors won, and the elections were re-done, where Yushchenko won fair and square.

6 years later there are new elections, in which Yanukovich wins, again, fairly. He promised that he’d integrate Ukraine with Europe and join the EU. However, in 2013 when he was about to sign the agreements to improve relations with the EU, he made a complete 180 degree turn, and spoke about rebuilding relations with Russia. This, naturally made upset the Ukrainians very upset, so they protested for three months straight. They’d eat and sleep on the streets to protest every minute of every day and night, this resulted in police brutality. Every February 20th the people lost during these protests are mourned for their sacrifices for Ukraine’s freedom.

Yanukovich, unable to resist these protests fled the country, While the population was looking for a new president Russia invaded Crimea, there was a referendum, which was accepted due to the pressure and the country we are dealing with, Crimea was taken, and soon the fight over Donetsk and Luhansk begins.

Then, on the 24th of February, the full-scale invasion begins. Ukrainians have fought strongly, never ever giving up, fighting for there freedom, for the freedom of Europe, fighting for the truth and honesty Russia has yet to show. Take a minute today, after reading this far (thank you for still sticking around!) and thank the Ukrainians who have lost their lives in these battles, those who have lost their lives in merciless attacks, and those left behind.

Now, let’s listen to the experiences of one awesome Ukrainian: Living in war is terrifying, “you stop caring about food, sleep. Just staying alive, only thing that matters. We [Ukrainians are] Europeans. We’re not Russia. We died for this, and we continue to fight, every day, for this. We’re not just some people dying somewhere. We are real! We have our language, our songs, our fairytales. We exist. We matter.

Finally, a line from the Ukrainian anthem: "Душу й тіло ми положим за нашу свободу, І покажем, що ми, браття, козацького роду” Meaning “We'll lay down our souls and bodies to attain our freedom, And we'll show that we, brothers, are of the Cossack nation” Слава Українi!

#ukraine #слава україні!

41 notes · View notes

alcestas-sloboda · 10 months

Text

As I said, here are some of the quotes of Dzhokhar Dudayev, the first president of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, taken from his various interviews and compiled with the help of his wife into a book "Лицар Свободи" ("The Knight of Freedom").

About the UN:

"The multi-volume UN resolutions lie on the shelves and are not implemented in relation to the nations. And since the day this organization was founded, we have not heard a single thing in defense of the Chechen people during the worst repressions. And in general, about all repressed peoples of the old regime"

About Budapest memorandum:

"Therefore, we need to turn to the UN to protect Ukraine, help it, protect it from sabotage. It’s better to let these nuclear weapons be in Ukraine than in Russia. They have absolutely no control over it there. If we come together with a common position and program, we can stop the nuclear disaster and the killing of peoples. The only thing we lack is unity"

About ruscism:

"To peoples of the former USSR I wish nothing. What they deserve, they themselves do. The peoples of the former, present, or future Union and, in particular, Russia, are sick of ruscism. And this is a very dangerous and serious chronic disease. Ruscism is scarier than all other misanthropic ideologies. And this terrible disease can probably be cured only by the most difficult tests. Russians are probably the only people on earth who do not believe in anything at all. Spiritless, immoral and hopelessly behind the level of human development. Not inclined to spirituality, and, accordingly, to morality. And this, unfortunately, on a massive scale. What is happening now... Chechnya is just an excuse. And at the root of it all lies the misanthropic ideology. And for this, you have to pay."

About peace between Ichkeria and Russia (compare it to Zelenskyy’s peace plan):

"But there can be peace between Chechnya and Russia only if these criminals are handed over to us. Either the world community will condemn them and bring them to justice, or they will hand them over to us. This is the first condition. The withdrawal of troops from the territory of the Republic, so that we can at least bury people, tally up the casualties and accounts - is also an indispensable condition. Another condition is the restoration of material and moral damages, once again inflicted on our people. And guarantees of the international community of security to the citizens of the Chechen Republic and its state integrity. Under these conditions, peace will come. Without them, we will fight to the last. Both Russia and Chechnya. Russia as a state will not be on our land. And it has no chance here. But we have"

The importance of NATO for the European security:

"In vain, the Russians think that now they will intimidate the world with their army, criminals, and nuclear weapons. Humanity can no longer be intimidated. Everyone has already been through that, everyone has gone through this hell of ruscism. Either Russia will disappear as a state, or it will have to turn to the world community. And for this, humanity must make efforts so that there are no blocs, no military confrontations in the world. Especially the Russian bloc. Only one bloc is needed - NATO, and it must be expanded. Let countries join a single military bloc to protect the interests of all peoples of the globe. And the weaker the people, the greater the protection should be. Then there will be calm and peace on Earth. It's time to kick Russia out of the UN. Humanity must protect itself from ruscism by putting itself in the shoes of the Chechens. In this way, they will protect themselves from future destruction"

One of the interviews given to Ukrainian journalists:

"How long will this war last?"

"This war will last fifty years. Perhaps there will be a temporary pause, but the war will continue. Its scale will expand, it will smolder for a long time, and the foci of smoldering will spread more widely. Probably, until Russia as a state does not disappear"

#don’t have the book with me right now but will do on friday so if you want to know where the particular quote is from just ask #and yeah #he was a titan of a man #dzhokhar dudayev #ichkeria

128 notes · View notes

catgirlforeskin · 8 months

Note

Just so that everyone is on the same page: if we are going to analogize the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the American invasion of Iraq, Russia is playing the role of America.

Russia is even running the same bullshit "our enemies are fascist" propaganda campaign.

If you're anti war, you should be protesting Russian warmongering, not American aid to those resisting.

I’ve talked extensively about how Russia is doing the “war on terror” routine, and how the invasion, which I oppose, is causing Ukraine to become more fascist in reaction (banning of all opposition parties, welcoming of neonazi militias into the national guard, etc).

I’ve been analogizing to Afghanistan, not Iraq, which if you recall, was also invaded by Russia (then the Soviet Union) and the US trained and armed the mujahideen in response. Something I think we can agree was a bad move, given that the Taliban now controls the country, no?

I do not live in Russia, I can’t meaningfully protest their government, but I can protest mine sending over fucking cluster munitions man. Government officials in the US (and a number of European countries, Germany most recently) have outright said they don’t care if Ukrainians want to surrender, they will keep pushing for total victory. It’s a meat grinder that NATO is pouring Ukrainians into and reaping the benefits of. I want it to end.

#asks

74 notes · View notes

allthebrazilianpolitics · 1 year

Text

Lula’s Confused About Who Attacked Whom in Ukraine

Having defended democracy at home, Brazil inspired hope that it might sympathize with the struggle for freedom elsewhere too. Apparently not.

With democrats like Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who needs autocrats? Shame on Lula for pretending that Kyiv, NATO and the European Union are as much to blame for Russia’s genocidal war against Ukraine as the wannabe Tsar in the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin. Shame on Lula for doing nothing to help Ukraine.

Lula was sworn into his old job — he was already president between 2003 and 2010 — only one month ago. That followed the four-year stint of right-wing populist Jair Bolsonaro — “the Trump of the Tropics.” A week after Lula took over, pro-Bolsonaro mobs even ransacked federal buildings in Brasilia, in a farcical reprise of the attack on the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. When Brazil’s institutions — and Lula — withstood that assault, much of the democratic world exhaled in relief.

“We’re all delighted that Brazil is back on the global stage,” Scholz beamed at Lula during his visit to Brasilia this week. “You guys have been sorely missed.” Lula spontaneously gave the chancellor a hug.

In particular, Scholz wants to broaden the alliance to support Ukraine and oppose Putin by including as many countries as possible in the “Global South.” Last year, for example, when he hosted the Group of Seven, a club of liberal democracies with large economies, he also invited India, Indonesia, South Africa and Senegal.

But it was Lula who not only rebuffed Scholz’s entreaties wholesale but also lost the plot entirely. “Brazil has no interest in passing on ammunition so that it will be used in the war,” Lula said at their joint press conference. “Brazil does not want to have any participation, even indirect.”

For a glimpse into Lula’s reasoning, it helps to read his comments in an interview with Time Magazine last year. “It’s not just Putin who is guilty,” Lula insisted. “The US and the EU are also guilty” — apparently for not being more categorical in ruling out Ukraine’s membership in NATO (which hasn’t even been up for discussion since 2008).

But Lula had more to say. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy may strike most people as an inspirational leader defying a brutal invasion. Not Lula. The Brazilian president believes Zelenskiy is “weird” and behaves like a publicity hound flitting from one TV camera to the next, when he should instead be “negotiating” — presumably about Ukraine’s capitulation. “This guy is as responsible as Putin for the war,” he said.

Come again?

#brazil #ukraine #russia #politics #brazilian politics #ukraine crisis #luiz inacio lula da silva #foreign policy #international politics #mod nise da silveira #image description in alt

214 notes · View notes

potuzzz · 28 days

Note

I’m not trying to start a fight/argue, but Ukraine has always supported Palestine. I think it’s important to know that since they themselves are getting invaded, Ukraine isn’t really in a position to put too much involvement in other countries affairs at the moment. But historically, the two have always had good relations

Ukraine doesn’t like Israel, if that’s not obvious.

But Ukraine and Palestine have long recognized each other’s independence. The two are more similar than people realize.

(Again, I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I just want to clarify some Information.)

I promise I won't fight or argue 😉 I'm only occasionally a horrid asshole when people attack me personally, but I love talking kindly with people I disagree with <3

I definitely think things are a little more complicated between Ukraine's support of Israel than, say, the United State's support of Israel, but there is still support-- allow me to state my case why. Bear with me, it requires some context.

I think the most important thing to point out first is that that this support was historic. The state of Ukraine supported Palestine as a Soviet Republic, just as all communists support liberation and oppose apartheid and genocide everywhere. I'm not sure what would have happened after 1991 following the dissolution of the socialist project, but even after the capitalist coup of the Union, these post-socialist societies retained much of their Soviet values ideologically and morally, as well as their international relationships; it would not have surprised me if Ukraine from 1991 to 2014 maintained support of Palestine.

However, the neutral Ukrainian government in 2014, which had good relations with both Westerners in Europe as well as their sibling nation Russia, was couped by the Westerners. What then began was a process of liberalization, militarization, and Nazification of the political and military body.

The Banderites are a group of Ukranian Neo Nazis who are directly and descended without interruption from the original Ukranian Nazi collaborators--as the Nazis raped and pillaged and slaughtered their way eastward in the opening days of WW2, many Eastern Europeans joined their ranks, both fascist individuals happily joining in the destruction of their Jewish, Slavic, etc. neighbors, and also those who were fearful, or just opportunists. Banderites remained a fringe political movement in the underground of Ukrainian politics for a century--while the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 made their anticommunist, fascist, white supremacist ideology a little freer to stretch its legs, it wasn't until the 2014 coup and its aftermath that they were truly enabled. And enabled they were: Western weapons, ammo, armor, vehicles, intel, military trainers, mercenaries, political favors, and vast sums of money helped the Banderite movement take power in Ukraine. For 8 years, children began being taught Nazi ideology in public schools, groups that were previously underground Neo Nazi paramilitary groups were integrated formally into the military and political body, and those deemed ethnically inferior such as African or Arab immigrants and their more Slavic Russian-speaking neighbors at the east end of Ukraine were harassed, assaulted, killed--bombed, sniped, burned alive.

America and NATO purposefully provoked Russia to invade Ukraine in 2022 as part of their geopolitical strategy since the end of WW2 to contain, weaken, and, eventually, balkanize and colonize Russia.

I won't dig into the details of this conflict, but, suffice to say, it is only through the billions and billions of American dollars that this war didn't end in a few short months.

Likewise, if it wasn't for the billions and billions of American dollars that Israel receives, Israel would have been destroyed by its Arab neighbors generations ago.

Here arises a conflict that the Ukrainian government shares with the Israelis: they both compete to be USA's #1 vassal and to be granted massive subsidies to continue their fascist projects. A dollar sent to Ukraine is a dollar that could have been sent to the IDF, and vice versa.

There is other small geopolitical kinks: Israel and Russia occasionally collaborate in Syria to fight ISIS. Many of the Jews that immigrated to the newly formed Israel came from both Ukraine and Russia.

Now, besides these kinks, including the two UN resolutions you cited, there is no indication that post-2014 Ukraine and Israel are anything but amicable, and support each others respective fascist ideologies, even with the seeming paradox that one is explicitly antisemitic and the other proclaims itself to be the sole voice of Judaism.

Zelensky and Netanyahu have amicable diplomatic relations. They have visited each other's countries many times, and taken turns denouncing Hamas and Russia, respectively. They each publicly support each others sovereignty, urge continued cooperation, and have taken small steps to strengthening political, economic, and militaristic ties, including the exchange of intel, weapons, and training.

The situation is complicated, but the final tally is clear: they are both vassals of the United States, they are both embroiled in hot wars that rely heavily on the approval and charity of American and European citizens and institutions, and whatever feelings they may share privately are secondary to that fact. Perhaps they secretly don't like each other, and see each other as competitors, and only work together under the duress of the United States. Perhaps they love each other, greatly admire each other, and things like the UN resolution are a lover's spat, and reluctance to fully cosign each other is the result of the petty game of necessary geopolitical posturing for their ultimate goals. Perhaps it is a bit of both. But, the end result is the same: they are both minions subordinate to the United States, and thus in this 3rd World War, they are allies, however strange bedfellows they may appear.

18 notes · View notes