bunnies wrote at March 17, 2022, 6:55 PM

Agreed, it's bad. Take for instance the point about non-NATO European countries being pressured into joining. Like, we're not being pressured by the evil ghost of American imperialism, we're just finding out that apparently no one will help you when you get invaded if you're not part of NATO, because that will start WW3. And when it happens, socialists will write articles about how great solidarity is (in the abstract, of course), while actively advocating against sending you guns to defend yourself.

devtesla wrote at March 17, 2022, 7:35 PM

In the specific case of Ukraine, what I'm seeing isn't necessarily that the entire country "needs guns to to defend themselves" and more that Zelenskyy wants more guns to send loads of untrained conscripts into a meat grinder. There's a difference between the government of Ukraine and the working class of the Ukraine, of which the men of the country aren't allowed to leave.

I don't have a solution to this problem but I don't think "let's not funnel weapons into this conflict" is an indefensible position, particularly when you look at everything the US has gotten involved with that go so much worse.

One last thing: NATO membership is something used by western countries to influence domestic policy in countries like Ukraine. Since Zelenskyy came to power, there's been a transformation of Ukraine to low cost labor source for the rest of Europe, causing GDP to crater and lots of people to already leave the country before the war started. This is how NATO has been since its founding. Being anti-NATO is supporting the working class.

I hope this somewhat makes the DSA position more clear? I know that this doesn't truly tackle anything that's horrifying about Russia and is a little bit US main character shit, but it's an American org so it's mostly gonna talk about America.

Moonside wrote at March 19, 2022, 5:41 AM

I fail to see how the it benefits the working class conscripts to have no weapons to defend themselves with.

One last thing: NATO membership is something used by western countries to influence domestic policy in countries like Ukraine. Since Zelenskyy came to power, there's been a transformation of Ukraine to low cost labor source for the rest of Europe, causing GDP to crater and lots of people to already leave the country before the war started. This is how NATO has been since its founding. Being anti-NATO is supporting the working class.

The background issue to Crimean annexation and the war in Donbass was the trade agreement with the European Union, not NATO membership, which became impossible as the war was an on-going territorial dispute.

Though Ukrainian corruption ought not to underestimated, the decline in GDP since the beginning of Zelenskyi's term in 2019 is mostly attributable to the on-going COVID19 pandemic.

bunnies wrote at March 20, 2022, 2:38 AM

I very much sympathize and agree with your point about how the USA, given its history in global conflicts, should tread very carefully in this situation. On the other hand, I kinda feel like "really? of all the conflicts you've been involved in since WWII, this is when you've suddenly decided to grow a conscience???" (and when I say 'you' here, I mean a very vague gestures in the general direction of the USA, I know that american socialists have been opposed to all these illegitimate wars.)

But I don't really buy the overall narrative here. Looking at a source of the GDP of Ukraine that I found, the only dips are after the financial crisis, and after being invaded by Russia the first time. When did this supposed economic downturn due to NATO influence start? And if Ukraine has been selling out their economy for the hope of a NATO membership, why is no one coming to its aid? Seems like a bad precedence to set if the USA is indeed pressuring countries to join.

It seems to me like american socialists are so entrenched in the idea that american imperialism is to blame in global conflicts that it has become a self-evident truth, no further analysis needed. And any war that Russia starts is obviously a proxy war against the USA. I don't think this is the case anymore, and I think that the failure to recognize this, and incorporate it in their analysis, is what makes the DSA's response so lacklustre. (On the other hand, I don't know anything and no one should listen to me.)

Moonside wrote at March 19, 2022, 4:49 AM

I find the focus on NATO bizarre for two fold reasons.

First, it ignores the immediate backdrop to war in Donbass and the annexation of Crimea, namely Ukraine seeking closer connection with the EU, which didn't suit Putin, but which also distinctively isn't NATO. In fact in 2013 Russia warned that the treaty recognizing Ukrainian border would be invalidated by the signing of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement.

Secondly, before Russian aggression against Ukraine, European NATO allies had been making their armed forces smaller rather than larger and the US has focused on other areas in favor of Eastern Europe. It is difficult to read these as provocations. The increases in military build up have happened after Russian aggression.

I do think that Bush administration had a negative impact that has been reflected in Russia, but the Trump administration sought to warm the relationship, to no avail.