To be somewhat fair, all of Russia’s claims in Ukraine (Crimea, the Donbas) would give them unparalleled access to the Sea of Azov and the northern banks of the Black Sea. Yes, I know they control a significant portion of the Black Sea already, but this would allow them to wrap the Sea of Azov nicely.
I know Russia states they’re there to kick the Nazis out of the Donbas and protect the Russian language minority in that region, but I also don’t believe any nation, especially a very nationalistic, neoliberal government like Russia’s, is out doing something out of the goodness of their hearts. Call me a cynic, but I think the expanded Black Sea control is more important to the government.
I see the expanded Black Sea control as a way to sure up control of Crimea. If they didn’t then the only physical connection between Crimea and the rest of Russia would be the bridge, which has shown to be quite vulnerable.
But man, you really think Russia invaded because of a “land grab”? Does that make any sense to you?
I mean, how many wars have Russians started in the past for access to a warm water port? Shit, how many times have they fought over just the Crimea? Access to the black sea has been one of the most strategically important national goals for Russia throughout history.
What, all of them, unanimously, assembling their bodies into a single collossal humanoid mass of flesh and bone? This is the problem with a nationalist worldview, you miss the actual dynamic driving the event. Which Russians?
This is the problem with a nationalist worldview, you miss the actual dynamic driving the event. Which Russians?
The actual dynamic driving the event is the same for whatever government is controlling the modern states territory… the whole point of historic materialism is to view the inherent motive behind the actions of state.
Whatever government controls Russia has the same material needs as governments in the past. They require access to trade routes and logistics wether they are soviets, federations, or imperial.
Then why are you talking about it in the same terms as naive nationalists who don’t know materialism? It’s some really sus shit to proclaim to know all this but then make zero effort to differentiate your rhetoric from the “inherently authoritarian ruzzian orcs” crowd, continuing to frame it as though people who happen to be born in a certain socially constructed polity are somehow inherently a problem, while arguing pretty unmaterialistically that Russians (not the Russian Federation, just Russians gestures vaguely) started the conflict in Ukraine rather than joining a conflict that had been ongoing for nearly a decade. I’m not saying you’re not a materialist, but I am saying i detect latent nationalist brainworms.
Then why are you talking about it in the same terms as naive nationalists who don’t know materialism?
I don’t know what you’re talking about? All I said was that the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
continuing to frame it as though people who happen to be born in a certain socially constructed polity are somehow inherently a problem, while arguing pretty unmaterialistically that Russians (not the Russian Federation, just Russians
Lol, that’s quite the assumption to jump to based on the use of “Russians”. Do you get as pedantic if I were to say “the Americans benefited from chattel slavery”
started the conflict in Ukraine rather than joining a conflict that had been ongoing for nearly a decade. I’m not saying you’re not a materialist, but I am saying i detect latent nationalist brainworms.
A conflict they’ve been perpetuating for nearly a decade… you are the one trying to interpret the situation through a nationalistic lense. You’re literally aping the nationalistic justification for the imperial expansion of a capitalist nation.
Forget about the nationalistic dressing and actually apply some leftist theory… why does the west support Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe? Why does the US support Turkey, a state run by man who’s trying to turn it into a Islamic theocracy?
It’s all to control access to the black sea, the same reason the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
I don’t want to put a bunch of preludes and explain myself etc.
But man, you really think Russia invaded because of a “land grab”? Does that make any sense to you?
The Russian Federation, famously short on land
To be somewhat fair, all of Russia’s claims in Ukraine (Crimea, the Donbas) would give them unparalleled access to the Sea of Azov and the northern banks of the Black Sea. Yes, I know they control a significant portion of the Black Sea already, but this would allow them to wrap the Sea of Azov nicely.
I know Russia states they’re there to kick the Nazis out of the Donbas and protect the Russian language minority in that region, but I also don’t believe any nation, especially a very nationalistic, neoliberal government like Russia’s, is out doing something out of the goodness of their hearts. Call me a cynic, but I think the expanded Black Sea control is more important to the government.
I see the expanded Black Sea control as a way to sure up control of Crimea. If they didn’t then the only physical connection between Crimea and the rest of Russia would be the bridge, which has shown to be quite vulnerable.
It’s literally just to stop NATO expansion, protecting Russian speakers in Ukraine is just an incidental political benefit
The “warm port” and “land grab” theories are pure nonsense that ignore the last 8 years of Eastern European history
I mean, how many wars have Russians started in the past for access to a warm water port? Shit, how many times have they fought over just the Crimea? Access to the black sea has been one of the most strategically important national goals for Russia throughout history.
Not the dreaded warm water port discussion. When will we ever grow as a society?
Honestly, give climate change another 30-40 years and it prob won’t be an issue you hear about ever again.
What, all of them, unanimously, assembling their bodies into a single collossal humanoid mass of flesh and bone? This is the problem with a nationalist worldview, you miss the actual dynamic driving the event. Which Russians?
The actual dynamic driving the event is the same for whatever government is controlling the modern states territory… the whole point of historic materialism is to view the inherent motive behind the actions of state.
Whatever government controls Russia has the same material needs as governments in the past. They require access to trade routes and logistics wether they are soviets, federations, or imperial.
Then why are you talking about it in the same terms as naive nationalists who don’t know materialism? It’s some really sus shit to proclaim to know all this but then make zero effort to differentiate your rhetoric from the “inherently authoritarian ruzzian orcs” crowd, continuing to frame it as though people who happen to be born in a certain socially constructed polity are somehow inherently a problem, while arguing pretty unmaterialistically that Russians (not the Russian Federation, just Russians gestures vaguely) started the conflict in Ukraine rather than joining a conflict that had been ongoing for nearly a decade. I’m not saying you’re not a materialist, but I am saying i detect latent nationalist brainworms.
I don’t know what you’re talking about? All I said was that the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
Lol, that’s quite the assumption to jump to based on the use of “Russians”. Do you get as pedantic if I were to say “the Americans benefited from chattel slavery”
A conflict they’ve been perpetuating for nearly a decade… you are the one trying to interpret the situation through a nationalistic lense. You’re literally aping the nationalistic justification for the imperial expansion of a capitalist nation.
Forget about the nationalistic dressing and actually apply some leftist theory… why does the west support Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe? Why does the US support Turkey, a state run by man who’s trying to turn it into a Islamic theocracy?
It’s all to control access to the black sea, the same reason the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
“Access to infrastructure that allows the movement of critical goods” isn’t really captured by the phrase “land grab”