site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   1386 thread views

Transnational Thursday for August 29, 2024

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A lot of people here at The Motte seem to be pro russian, why?

I’m from there, haven’t been back for thirty years, and retain some nostalgia for it. Mostly want the mobiks to come back in one piece, on both sides.

Ironically, if my dad had gained custody when I was little, I’d have grown up in Kharkov and possibly died on the front as a Ukrainian mobik by now. Or I might have bailed back to Russia in ‘14, depending on the amount of roots put down by then.

Life is strange.

To be clear I have great love for (western)Ukraine, on the basis of ethnoreligious prejudices. But I also want the war to end asap, to minimize human suffering, and it seems that a Russian victory is the fastest way there.

Because Russian society does not normalize ethnomasochism.

I encourage you to google-translate Russian rhetoric aimed at their own people.

The one white Christian country where the state sanctions native ethnic supremacism and supports traditional religion is... Ukraine, currently being invaded by Russia.

From a white ethnonationalist perspective, any European expression of ethnonationalist sentiment is immediately suspect if the Washingtonian globohomo empire / GAE not only permits it to exist but actively encourages and bankrolls it as a local enforcer of its overseas aspirations. It's doubly suspect if it's justified by claims of ethnogenesis that have no basis in reality, unlike those of Polish, Baltic and Finnish nationalists, to be fair to them.

Western Ukraine(and the astroturfed "Ukrainian" identity is mostly Galician supremacy) was not, historically, part of Russia, it was part of Poland(well technically Austria for much of the period, but you get the point). Claiming there to be no real distinction from Russia is simply dumb; the closest culture is a western Slavic one.

Now anti-Americanism as a basis for supporting Russia at least makes sense, but 'Ukraine isn't really based' doesn't.

Correct. Galicia is certainly distinctive. Preserving Galician identity makes complete sense there. But the Crimea, the Donbass, Novorossiya are not Galicia.

Neither is the Chechen Republic Russia, yet if you say that in public in Russia you'll be charged with advocating for secession. Borders are even more fake than ethnicities. And certainly, the only reason the Russian government has started to trump up the "historical Russian cities" bullshit in the past few years is the geopolitical convenience.

False equivalence. Galicia was never a nation, not even a sovereign entity as far as I know, and probably shouldn't be one either (but that's another matter). You can say Chechnya was never a part of Muscovy, and that'd be correct.

Muscovy didn't spawn from the ether as an ethnic atom, either. The rules are made up and the points do not matter. What matters is that some countries take a bloody war to convince being/remaining a part of another country and some don't. Out of pure personal pragmatism, I consider only the latter arrangements legitimate.

Ethnicity is a meme. There is never any essential, objective "basis in reality". In that regard, if the Ukrainian nationalists can meme it like the Finns did, they they have it.

Unlike the Ukrainians, unfortunately (for this point of view, that is) the Finns aren't Slavs, aren't Orthodox Christians and have their own peculiar language.

And?

You're regurgutating Russian justifications for their very mundane geopolitical ambitions, not any real obstacles that would prevent ethnogenesis. Humans are evolved to break themselves apart into groups much smaller than a modern nation-state.

And?

And that means that Finns are markedly different from Russians in multiple aspects. Ukrainians, on the other hand, aren't.

Demographic projections predict Russia to be Muslim majority towards the end of the century, at roughly the same time Western European nations will become majority non-European. Moscow and St. Petersburg might achieve this much earlier, similar to other European capitals like London. Russian (ethno-)nationalists have been angry for years about the higher fertility of Muslim minorities and Central Asian migration that are the causes behind this.

The Kremlin's line on this has vacillated between vague overtures towards blood-based nationalism and civic nationalism à la 'no such thing as an ethnic Russian' in their rhetoric and doing basically nothing to stem the tide or even facilitating it with migration treaties in practical terms.

Despite the similarity to examples of Western race-themed cuckiness, the line about 'no such thing as an ethnic Russian' is at least aligned with the reality of the traditions of the Russian state, so I can't fault them for that. While the Putinist system obviously comes across as lame-ass from the perspective of a blood & soil nationalist, that doesn't disprove my original point.

Suppose I oppose a Coalition of the Willing style invasion of Venezuela on the basis that it would turn into a massive mess, that resources are needed elsewhere, that the various tools available are ineffective for achieving objectives.

That doesn't make me pro-Maduro or pro-Venezuela. Both are bad. It's a very poorly run country exporting all kinds of problems. However, the right tools to fix the problem don't exist and using the wrong tools will make the situation worse. Have sanctions on Venezuela made anything better? No. There's good reason to think they've made things worse, driving up oil prices.

Likewise with Russia. We have tools like sanctions and military action. They don't work or require sacrifices that are not justified by the gains on offer. We shouldn't use them. What have we gotten? Economic problems in Europe, a wrecked and diminishing Ukraine, a lot of angry Russians. All of this was procured at considerable expense. Finland and Sweden were already in the Western camp, so having them in NATO is not terribly helpful.

Since everyone loves their WW2 metaphors with this conflict and 1938 can hardly be avoided in these discussions, let's think about the Stresa Front. The Allied Powers of WW1, Britain, France and Italy were working together. All were agreed that Hitler's Germany was a little too dangerous, they shouldn't be allowed to annex Austria and pursue dangerous revanchist tendencies. Then Italy decided to invade Ethiopia. Britain and France decided that they couldn't stand for this and imposed sanctions on Italy. This did nothing to help the Ethiopians who were ground down and annexed. Italy left the Stresa Front. Mussolini joined up with Hitler, giving him the greenlight to annex Austria and make lots more problems for the Allies.

If we're not willing to fight (and we're not because of Russia's H-bombs) then why go out of our way to cause problems for them? Do we want them to help China as much as possible in a future conflict? Do we want them to shovel heaps of weapons into any future invasions we launch? Do we want them to coup random African countries? The policies we've been pursuing are very unhelpful.

Because the dominant narrative from the MSM is anti-Russian, and the easiest way to be hip is to just say the exact opposite of what the MSM says without looking too much into the details.

Not really pro Russia, but anyone that fights the globalists I can't be too mad at. They are the biggest threat to the world and have the most immediately negative impact on my life so the more they bleed the happier I am. If its some place that I have no real connection to doing the work and taking the blows in response all the better for me. They lost a lot of prestige in the middle east but unfortunately plenty of lied to Americans had to die for it, when Ukraine collapses and they lose even more face no Americans will have died (the mercs and spooks that go there are only American on paper, and in reality are globalists or opportunists chasing globalist cash that know what they're getting themselves into)

I also don't buy that Russia is an aggressor or much of a threat to America at this point (they are an impediment to global empire though). This ignores a lot of history and hand waves away all of the globalist / NATOs foreign intervention and expansion. NATO acts a lot like mafia protection racket on behalf of DC / Brussels, destabilize and regime change parts of the world, then offer protection from the chaos they create, with the implied threat that this could happen to you as well if you don't submit.

Also just pro common sense, there has never been any chance that Ukraine could win, regardless of how much of our money the globalists pour into the country (while skimming lots for them and their friends in the MIC). Trying to hunt for Russia's nuclear red lines is just profound idiocy, continually escalating and using each non response as a reason to be more confident that there will never be one is just... It's rare to see something that stupid even with how corrupt and full of yes men willing to human centipede there way up the ladder globalist institutions have become. Almost hope they find the red line at this point.

This wasn't originally a reason, but over time after having followed the war closely I've just come to be absolutely disgusted by the Kiev regime. From day one the propaganda coming out of that place was just insulting. On par with urban legends of North Korean propaganda. If Zelensky played golf at all he'd shoot nothing but hole in ones. You expect a certain amount of propaganda during a war, but it's been absurd. Seeing how their border with Europe has become a drone monitored barbed wire spectacle that the Republicans here could only dream of, and watching people get beaten and ripped off the streets for conscription, watching them and the globalists concoct ways to force or deport Ukrainians back into the country after they support asylum for muslims that have passed through a half dozen safe countries... The way troops are sacrificed and sent on suicide missions to Crimea, or across the Dnieper to Krynky for months... all just for Zelensky's publicity. It'd be abhorrent even for a war that had some achievable end goals, but for one that has no purpose beyond robbing western countries, psyoping their increasingly delusional populations into misplaced jingoism and enriching some treacherous Ukrainian elites it's just disgusting.

They could've taken defensive positions with all the western kit gifted to them, ceded some more territory and taken a big L yes, but really dug in and shortened the lines enough that even with their limited population they could've had plenty of reserves more concentrated AA etc. Basically the ability to keep the front stable for years and convince Russia to negotiate, instead they blow it all on some publicity stunt to impress their western masters complete with Hollywood movie trailer (shhh). This operation's goal was to "liberate" the part of "occupied" aka separatist Ukraine that has the least desire to be part of Ukraine and the most Russians... now they randomly invade Russia, again lengthening a front they already can't man, for an op that even western propagandists are struggling to invent a purpose beyond PR for. Weeks later we have a stalled out offensive with the biggest Ukrainian losses since their summer offensive and their Donetsk front is collapsing...

So yeah, best of luck to Russia, to AFD and FN, to Trump, to the Ukrainian men trying to escape, to Elon Musk, and really at this point anyone that isn't just parroting what they read in globalist media.

Large part seems being contrarian for sake of being contrarian and then building justification on top of that.

Or assuming that entire reality is opposite to what broadly defined left claims.

Also, isolationism.

Also, isolationism.

Hell, I wouldn’t even mind if those posters actually argued that they want US isolationism. At least that’s a position that can be argued. Instead it’s almost always ”the west shouldn’t” as if ”the west” meant only the US.

I'm not American; I think other countries should also mind their own.

Then you should have no problem saying ”I think [insert your country here] should…”

And of course for many countries in the west, supporting Ukrane is by far the least costly way to stave off Russian agression aimed directly at them.

I think Canada should stay out of foreign wars? Sure -- I do also have opinions on what the US should do since we tend to get dragged along, I think that is legitimate?

I don't care what Europe does, although I have roughly the same sympathy level for the EU as an organization as I do Russia -- this is not because I'm pro-Russia; I am anti-EU.

I think Canada should stay out of foreign wars? Sure -- I do also have opinions on what the US should do since we tend to get dragged along, I think that is legitimate?

Sure, that's a logical position that can be argued. I disagree with it but I have no a problem with people making such argument.

What I do have a problem with is when people talk about "the west" when they're really talking about "US and Canada" when it comes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

So you are objecting specifically to people who think the European nations shouldn't meddle in each other's affairs? (Assuming 'West' means NA + EU/UK here?)

If so that also seems like a logical position that could be argued, given that the (early 20th century) Serbian unpleasantness was widely considered to have been kind of a bad idea?

No. I’m objecting to people who say ”the west” when they really mean ”USA” and who assume European countries have no agency and should blindly follow in doing what that person thinks is the best for USA.

More comments

Why are you anti-EU?

They are anti-freedom and want to homogenize the cultures of a bunch of countries I care about -- the former is also true of Russia, and enough in and of itself to make me anti-{x}; the latter is strike two and means I'm maybe even a little more anti-EU than anti-Russia?

I've been called that on here I think, but 'isolationist' would be a better word for me. I don't have a strong opinion on Russia per se.

When the only options are 'pro-war' and 'pro-russian' a lot of nuance becomes unavailable.

Mostly because the left is pro-Ukraine. With a bit of support for Putin because he is anti-LGBTQ. It's not much deeper than that.

Why not? It's not like you'll be banned / doxed / pursued for being pro-Russian here, as long as you're not insulting other posters too much in the process.

Which goes for most positions here.

I suppose why do people stan for a country that is clearly an enemy of the west/europe/america and invading sovereign countries with little justification? is more of my question.

I think here it's more anti-Western elite than actual pro-Russia, certainly compared to Twitter.

I suppose why do people stan for a country that is clearly an enemy of the west/europe/america

Presumably they don't like the way the West/Europe/America is going and would like to see the current ruling institutions and elites embarrased.

and invading sovereign countries with little justification?

What counts as a justification for war is up for debate. Some people reject the moral view of diplomacy that cares about things like sovereignty and justifications and think that a view based on threats and interests is more realistic. In this view things like a trend of NATO expansion become a trigger for war even if Ukraine didn't actually join NATO or do anything to harm Russia directly, and the only way this war could have been avoided and future wars also is if Western diplomats stop looking at things in idealistic moral terms and start thinking about how to preserve the balance of power.

There is a risk of implying too much about Russia with this model, if Western leaders are all idealists their enemies must be the opposite and therefore Putin is a rational calculator right? I can see someone convincing themselves into the pro-Russia camp this way, but looking at diplomacy in terms of threats and interests means you have to be open to the possibility of people misjudging their interests and the 'Putin made a huge blunder' case has also been made here.

Because western elites themselves are an enemy of the west / Europe / America. All you can do is pick your poison.

These two issues seem pretty orthogonal. Russia succeeding in Ukraine would certainly upset a lot of western elites, so I suppose someone could support them for that reason, but I'm not sure whether there's any strategic logic to it.

nah, empires need to continually expand to keep the spoils coming for the interior. Globalists exhausting themselves in the ME and eastern Europe, especially with China on the rise could easily end them. At the very least it'd ruin their hopes for some eventual whole world centralized control.

And the answer is the same- it's not like you'll be banned / doxed / pursued for such a stance here, as long you're not insulting other posters too much in the process.

Since this is a contrast to large parts of the 'normal' internet, the places you can simultaneously openly express such views without being in an ideological echo chamber are limited. Hence, the Motte gets a lot more of those sort of people than places that actively weed them out.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats