this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
3 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

49997 readers
702 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

No, it started a lot longer ago than that. Russia has maintained for decades now that NATO encirclement is a red line, and that included Ukraine. I'm not "endorsing" anything here, but explaining the cause of the war. Russia is interested in having a buffer zone against NATO, the US is interested in profiteering in the form of loans and mineral rights, and the ruling class of Ukraine is interested in gettting rich off of sending young people to die in a preventable war.

This isn't a war of "righteousness" or anything, it isn't good vs evil, but 3 countries with different interests and the Ukrainian people ending up with by far the shortest end of the stick.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To be clear Im talking about many of the other leftists that are celebrating Putin's invasions/actions not just you specifically

Russia has no right to demand a buffer zone and they have had plans to retake Ukraine for years as you always had that cadre of nutjobs going back to Zhirinovsky that would comment on the need to rebuild the empire. I believe they just found the right circumstances to take advantage of the situation.

No war is about morality and the only side with anything resembling a moral claim at all are those invaded.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't see what discussing the morality of the invasion will practically solve, nor the insistence on Russia not actually caring about NATO and instead wanting minerals. The reason it's important to accurately identify the cause of war is so that we can find a way to end it with the least harm possible, as it stands right now Ukraine is getting the rug pulled from under them and will be subject to US loans and Russian victory, the worst outcome for them, period.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Im not saying Russia doesn’t care about NATO. I have stated that it does not matter what Russia’s position is as they have no right to determine what Ukraine does despite the intense entitlement throughout Russia

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

You said it was a cover in order to grab minerals in Ukraine. I disagree, and that fundamentally changes how we analyze how to end the war.

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's hilarious that you accuse the US and Ukraine of wanting to get rich from mineral rights, but you won't accuse Russia of the same thing. In reality there will be rich people in each of those countries wanting to profit from minerals.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sure, there are likely people in Russia that want access to Ukrainian minerals, but that certainly doesn't seem to be the primary cause of the invasion to begin with.

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maybe the primary cause was Putin's megalomania, or indeed megalomania among quite a few Russian elites.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I don't believe in "Great Man Theory" as a useful method of analysis of historical trends. Material conditions and political economic factors play a far greater role in historical events than the individual whims of leaders.

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it's just Putin which is why I mentioned the megalomania of other Russian elites. But Putin surely made the final decision to invade.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

Believing history to be driven by the egos of a few individuals and divorcing it entirely from materialist analysis is Great Man Theory, though. Ego may have played a small factor, but certainly not the driving force.

[–] VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, it started a lot longer ago than that

You can listen to Putin himself and he goes back pretty far in history.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I could, but I think it's more important to look at what's actually truly relevant. NATO/Russian relations don't go nearly that far back.

[–] VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Putin is the Czar. What's on his matters most. Everything else is secondary or incidental.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Regardless of what Putin personally wants, Russia acts in the interests of its material conditions. Putin is a Nationalist, so his interests in maintaining a buffer from NATO generally align with the Russian public.

[–] VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

acts in the interests of its material conditions

It's a foundational mistake of Marxists to reduce everything to material conditions. You will never understand the world, if that's your only frame of reference.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

I don't reduce everything to material conditions, but I also don't believe in "Great Man Theory" either.