42
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
42 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2600 readers
107 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't mean this in a confrontational way at all and I'm no putin stan, but in what way do you mean?
Putin's invasion has reinvigorated NATO to a degree not seen since the Cold War ended. Ten years ago Germany's military was an international joke - they were putting broomsticks on their tanks to simulate having machine guns because the political will to actually fund it just wasn't there, but now they've massively increased spending and they're not the only one. While Ukraine's military capacity has been taken down as the SMO was intended to do, the total military strength arrayed against Russia has only increased thanks to multiple new countries joining NATO and the much-more-credible demand from the US that the previous membership increase spending.
Back before the war started, the consensus on the left was "he won't do it because it's obviously a terrible idea". We were wrong about the first part, but history has vindicated the second.
The "consensus on the [western] left" was the way it was because the western left (myself included) was largely ignorant of the real conditions on the ground in Ukraine and the Donbass. We were wrong because we didn't understand the situation, especially if we didn't follow Russian language media (even there it was downplayed, for political reasons) and relied on what was available in the Western information sphere which completely either misrepresented or blacked out any real information about the region. The reality is that Ukraine prior to the SMO had already amassed the largest army in Europe after Russia, and was preparing to launch an all out assault on the Donbass republics.
If they had managed to gain a foothold in the urban areas, which is a very realistic possibility given the blitzkrieg tactics that NATO trained them in, it would have been a catastrophe. What we have seen so far in the SMO has vindicated Russia's decision to launch it when it did ten times over. If the Nazis had been allowed to entrench themselves in the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk Russia would have had to level them entirely to dislodge the Ukrainian forces. Tens of thousands of civilians branded "terrorists" or "collaborators" by the Kiev regime's Nazi thugs would have been tortured and murdered. Millions would have fled, the remainder would have been used as human shields. Thanks to the SMO today Donetsk and Lugansk do not look like Bakhmut, they are not depopulated ruins, they are thriving cities.
You speak of all of the consequences of the SMO on western policy as if that was not always the plan, as if this conflict was not engineered and provoked by them precisely because they wanted to have this pretext. They left Russia no other choice and they knew it. They put Russia in a Zugzwang where they were forced to make a choice and neither choice was good. This is what nobody who says the SMO was a mistake has ever been able to answer: what choice did Russia have? What were they supposed to do instead?
They literally tried every other avenue, not just since 2014 but since NATO expansion started, they tried explaining their concerns to the West about NATO expansion time and time again, they repeatedly warned, they tried negotiating - doesn't work when the other side doesn't negotiate in good faith and only sees agreements as a ruse to buy time to rearm (as has been admitted by multiple European leaders), when the other side doesn't abide by the agreements - they even tried putting an entire draft treaty proposal in front of the Americans to avoid having to launch the SMO. Nothing worked, Ukraine was getting more and more Nazified, more and more militarized, pumped more and more full of weapons by the West. All this before the SMO, mind you.
It would have been a massive mistake not to launch the SMO. If the Donbass had been overrun and fallen to the Nazis the Russian government would have had a political crisis on their hands that might have brought down the entire government. Leaving the Ukraine situation to fester was creating an existential security risk for Russia that would have destroyed the Russian state. Instead now Russia is in a better economic and military position than it has been since 1991. NATO is panicking and increasing their budgets because they have been humiliated in the Ukraine proxy war. They really believed they could engineer a regime change or even collapse of the Russian state using this conflict, and instead it is NATO that is now close to collapse.
NATO may have (formally) expanded but in material terms it is weaker than ever, its stocks of weaponry and ammunition so depleted it will take a decade or more to refill them. If that's even possible given how this conflict has exposed the systemic inability of the privatized for-profit arms industry to keep up with the demands of a real peer conflict. And it is by no means as united as it pretends to be, we constantly see signs of their dysfunction and inability to agree on any substantive action. Throwing more money down the bottomless pit of the private MIC won't change this. It will only further destabilize the social and economic conditions here in Europe as our social safety nets get gutted, taxes increase, inflation continues to rise. Sooner or later this will cause massive political crises in Europe.
Meanwhile Russia's military industry is reinvigorated, their army expanded, reformed and massively more experienced. Their economy is thriving not despite but largely because of the sanctions and how it has forced the Russian state and economy to adjust, reorient, re-industrialize, and to clamp down on much of the neoliberal rot left over from the 90s. And diplomatically they are more popular across the global south than they have been since the days of the Soviet Union.
Was everything done perfectly? No of course not, far from it. I even think that much of this was not foreseen or planned by the Russian government, they very much were forced to improvise on the fly. Being consummate liberals, they were surprised at how hostile and how hellbent on Russia's destruction the West turned out to be (despite the fact that many in Russia, especially the communists, were trying to warn the government about this). They were very naive up to and even some time into the SMO. And even they did not expect their economy to hold up as well as it did.
According to the liberal with Marx's face, the Kremlin should have done some secret third thing.
It reminds me of how liberals talk about about successful revolutions in general. "They just should've done something else." And that something else is never elaborated. The conversation is then supposed to move on as if that was a scientific law or something.
No but seriously, this question needs to be asked. What should Russia have done instead? Typically you get one of three possible answers from the anti-SMO liberal-left:
No answer at all. Simply dodging the question and pretending it wasn't asked, or just flippantly saying "just don't invade"...ok, but what then? You're just saying what they shouldn't do, but what should they do? Should they do nothing? Have you given a single thought to what the consequences of that would be? Of course not, "just don't invade".
Suggest that Russia should do the very things it had already tried and was already doing for years if not decades; protest, negotiate, offer concessions, try to deter aggression by posturing, etc. This just shows that they have not been paying any attention whatsoever prior to 2022, instead acting as if history started in 2022, like Zionists with Oct 7.
Completely unrealistic and naive non-proposals like "wait for the UN/international community to condemn Ukraine's aggression if it attacks the Donbass". It goes without saying that this is laughable and infantile. Ukraine was already attacking the Donbass and we all saw how these international institutions ignored it or even gave them cover.
The only conclusions you can draw from this are either a) they have a very shallow understanding and very superficial knowledge about the conflict and its history, or b) that they are just trying to find ways to say "Russia should just roll over and surrender", which is what they are saying when they suggest Russia should have let Ukraine make the first move (and overrun the Donbass) "so that the Russians are not seen as the aggressor"...
Except that they know perfectly well, even if they won't admit it, that Russia would have been cast as the aggressor by the Western media regardless even if they let Ukraine make the first move, even if they reacted purely defensively and restricted their operations to the DPR and LPR. The West was already saying that Russia was in Ukraine even before 2022, they were already claiming that the Donbass militias were "Russians in disguise". We weren't born yesterday, we've been reading this shit since 2014.
The idea that Russia would be treated fairly if they "played by the rules" is ridiculous, and the West's moral condemnations are worthless anyway, they are literally supporting a genocide. They would condemn Russia for defending itself no matter what, just like they condemn anyone resisting Western imperialist aggression, occupation and genocide. There is only one thing that can satisfy the West and get its media to not cast you as the villain and that is total and complete capitulation.
Someone who wants badly enough to engineer a war will always find a way to get one, no matter how much restraint the other side tries to exercise. And no matter how much ground you give and how defensively you act, those who control the narrative via the media will always be able to spin it to make you look like the aggressor. At some point the only possible response is to establish undeniable facts on the ground, which sooner or later will have to be acknowledged. This is what Russia is doing. It's as simple as that. (Geo-)Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.