Concerned About The Right Aligning with Putin

[Stevicus]

Well since the NATO intervenes exclusively in countries rich in resources, like Libya, I wonder why the NATO is so interested in Russia...

Well, as you know, Russia is quite rich in resources.

Strictly speaking, I don't think that America and Russia ever really had any real disputes between just themselves. We were on opposite ends of the world and nothing to fight over.

It wasn't until we started aligning ourselves with European nations that their interests became aligned with ours. Britain, for example, had been paranoid about Russian expansionism since at least the Crimean War. As American interests started to become more closely aligned with that of Britain, then their paranoia became our paranoia - not just with Russia, but also with China (Boxer Rebellion) and Germany (WW1, although it took some coaxing before we finally joined that conflict).

However, I don't believe Britain had any real designs on conquering Russia itself, and they probably wouldn't have been able to even if they wanted to. Germany, however, had designs on Russia, since they were desperate for resources and Russia had plenty. Britain and France had locked them out of most of the rest of the world, and the Germans likely felt that they had as much right to take Russia as Britain had the right to take India.

Indeed, Britain and France saw Germany as a more immediate threat, so they allied themselves with Russia during both World Wars against Germany - even though the West had serious misgivings about aligning themselves with Russia (no matter if it was under the Tsar or under Stalin).

Historically, there was even a time when Poland tried to exert hegemony over Russia (late 16th/early 17th centuries). And of course, Russia and Turkey had an ancient enmity going back to 1453, when the Ottoman Turks took over Constantinople.

And here, we see Germany, Poland, and Turkey - ancient enemies of Russia - now members of NATO. In that sense, there have been countries within NATO which have always been interested in Russia - long before NATO (or even the USA) came into existence.

To tie this in with the original topic, I believe that what we're seeing here are competing forms of nationalism. Nationalism is often associated with Nazism and Fascism, so it's easy to make the connection and lump them into the right-wing. However, generically, nationalism is quite malleable depending on what nation one is siding with.

As a leftist myself, I tend to align with the anti-nationalist and internationalist side of the spectrum. I am against malignant nationalism, although I also recognize that the left has also been somewhat compromised on this issue, since the general tendency has been to support nationalism for the oppressed and anti-nationalism for the oppressors. Sounds good on the surface, but it's ideologically tainted, ill-conceived, and doomed to failure, as recent events would indicate.

In this current war, it seems obvious that it's a war between Ukrainian nationalists and Russian nationalists. So, for those on the right-wing and already ideologically pre-disposed to nationalism, then they might pick one side or the other depending on where they are and their own national security perceptions.

Or, they might favor picking no side at all, believing that it's not their fight and that they should not interfere in the fights of other nations. Let them fight it out on their own. I haven't heard any Western right-wingers advocating that we should help Putin or send weapons to the Russians. At worst, they might say that we shouldn't help either side and just remain neutral, but that's a far cry from actually aligning with Putin.

As for the left, I took note of the fact that the first member of the Russian Duma to publicly oppose the war and call for Russia's withdrawal was a member of the Russian Communist Party. From a Communist and left-wing standpoint, this is a very sad and unfortunate tragedy, that two former Communist states are now at each other's throats, fighting and killing each other when in previous eras had been unified against a common enemy.

In the end (assuming that the whole world doesn't go up in a nuclear inferno), Ukraine will be devastated and Russia will be severely crippled. This would have been a dream come true for men like Hitler, Joe McCarthy, Patton, Goldwater, Reagan, J. Edgar Hoover, and other people like that.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, as you know, Russia is quite rich in resources.

Strictly speaking, I don't think that America and Russia ever really had any real disputes between just themselves. We were on opposite ends of the world and nothing to fight over.

It wasn't until we started aligning ourselves with European nations that their interests became aligned with ours. Britain, for example, had been paranoid about Russian expansionism since at least the Crimean War. As American interests started to become more closely aligned with that of Britain, then their paranoia became our paranoia - not just with Russia, but also with China (Boxer Rebellion) and Germany (WW1, although it took some coaxing before we finally joined that conflict).

However, I don't believe Britain had any real designs on conquering Russia itself, and they probably wouldn't have been able to even if they wanted to. Germany, however, had designs on Russia, since they were desperate for resources and Russia had plenty. Britain and France had locked them out of most of the rest of the world, and the Germans likely felt that they had as much right to take Russia as Britain had the right to take India.

Indeed, Britain and France saw Germany as a more immediate threat, so they allied themselves with Russia during both World Wars against Germany - even though the West had serious misgivings about aligning themselves with Russia (no matter if it was under the Tsar or under Stalin).

Historically, there was even a time when Poland tried to exert hegemony over Russia (late 16th/early 17th centuries). And of course, Russia and Turkey had an ancient enmity going back to 1453, when the Ottoman Turks took over Constantinople.

And here, we see Germany, Poland, and Turkey - ancient enemies of Russia - now members of NATO. In that sense, there have been countries within NATO which have always been interested in Russia - long before NATO (or even the USA) came into existence.

To tie this in with the original topic, I believe that what we're seeing here are competing forms of nationalism. Nationalism is often associated with Nazism and Fascism, so it's easy to make the connection and lump them into the right-wing. However, generically, nationalism is quite malleable depending on what nation one is siding with.

As a leftist myself, I tend to align with the anti-nationalist and internationalist side of the spectrum. I am against malignant nationalism, although I also recognize that the left has also been somewhat compromised on this issue, since the general tendency has been to support nationalism for the oppressed and anti-nationalism for the oppressors. Sounds good on the surface, but it's ideologically tainted, ill-conceived, and doomed to failure, as recent events would indicate.

In this current war, it seems obvious that it's a war between Ukrainian nationalists and Russian nationalists. So, for those on the right-wing and already ideologically pre-disposed to nationalism, then they might pick one side or the other depending on where they are and their own national security perceptions.

Or, they might favor picking no side at all, believing that it's not their fight and that they should not interfere in the fights of other nations. Let them fight it out on their own. I haven't heard any Western right-wingers advocating that we should help Putin or send weapons to the Russians. At worst, they might say that we shouldn't help either side and just remain neutral, but that's a far cry from actually aligning with Putin.

As for the left, I took note of the fact that the first member of the Russian Duma to publicly oppose the war and call for Russia's withdrawal was a member of the Russian Communist Party. From a Communist and left-wing standpoint, this is a very sad and unfortunate tragedy, that two former Communist states are now at each other's throats, fighting and killing each other when in previous eras had been unified against a common enemy.

In the end (assuming that the whole world doesn't go up in a nuclear inferno), Ukraine will be devastated and Russia will be severely crippled. This would have been a dream come true for men like Hitler, Joe McCarthy, Patton, Goldwater, Reagan, J. Edgar Hoover, and other people like that.

That's exactly the point.
I believe external forces are trying to sow discord between the two nations.
Who assures me that nobody has paid the Ukrainian Nationalists so they would persecute the Russian-speaking population in Donbas? The purpose? To provoke Putin, so that the Donbas Republics would have asked for Russia's military intervention against Ukraine. Which is what happened last February.

By the way, if Donbas republics want to be independent, let them be independent.
There is the right to self-determination of the peoples. Apparently for some globalists this right is valid on every other day. It is valid on the even days (when it suits their narrative) and it is invalid on the odd ones.

I am for the independence of whatever territory. I believe if the South Tyrol wants to become independent via referendum, let them be.

 

[Stevicus]

That's exactly the point.
I believe external forces are trying to sow discord between the two nations.
Who assures me that nobody has paid the Ukrainian Nationalists so they would persecute the Russian-speaking population in Donbas? The purpose? To provoke Putin, so that the Donbas Republics would have asked for Russia's military intervention against Ukraine. Which is what happened last February.

By the way, if Donbas republics want to be independent, let them be independent.
There is the right to self-determination of the peoples. Apparently for some globalists this right is valid on every other day. It is valid on the even days (when it suits their narrative) and it is invalid on the odd ones.

I am for the independence of whatever territory. I believe if the South Tyrol wants to become independent via referendum, let them be.

Theoretically, I believe the US and other world governments would support the right of self-determination, although their primary complaint is that it's being done by force, rather than through diplomatic means, with due process within the framework of both international and the national laws of whatever nations are involved. But that's when it gets into the realm of politicians and lawyers, and in the end, the law is whatever the politicians say it is.

When it comes to world history and the various ways and means humans have acquired land and territory, it's actually quite a fascinating aspect. Historically, it's often been very messy, violent, atrocious. But then after the violence is over, the lawyers step in start making proclamations about who is the "legal" owner of the land. A lot of disputes seem to revolve around who is the legal or rightful owner of a given territory, and if lawyers, diplomats, and politicians can't figure it out or agree, wars usually result.

EDIT: That's one reason to declare that all the land belongs to all humans - no nations or boundaries. Just like many Native Americans believe, the Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth. Nobody owns the land. That's how it should be.

 

[Estro Felino]

Theoretically, I believe the US and other world governments would support the right of self-determination, although their primary complaint is that it's being done by force, rather than through diplomatic means, with due process within the framework of both international and the national laws of whatever nations are involved. But that's when it gets into the realm of politicians and lawyers, and in the end, the law is whatever the politicians say it is.

When it comes to world history and the various ways and means humans have acquired land and territory, it's actually quite a fascinating aspect. Historically, it's often been very messy, violent, atrocious. But then after the violence is over, the lawyers step in start making proclamations about who is the "legal" owner of the land. A lot of disputes seem to revolve around who is the legal or rightful owner of a given territory, and if lawyers, diplomats, and politicians can't figure it out or agree, wars usually result.

EDIT: That's one reason to declare that all the land belongs to all humans - no nations or boundaries. Just like many Native Americans believe, the Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth. Nobody owns the land. That's how it should be.

I think that in Europe it is a given that the European Nations legitimately own the lands, that is the European countries.
There are rights which are carved into the blood, in the DNA. Both public law and private law confirm it, by regulating kinship and children's inheritance.
If private property is a right, I don't understand why a country is not considered private property.

 

[Stevicus]

I think that in Europe it is a given that the European Nations legitimately own the lands, that is the European countries.
There are rights which are carved into the blood, in the DNA. Both public law and private law confirm it, by regulating kinship and children's inheritance.
If private property is a right, I don't understand why a country is not considered private property.

I guess a country could be considered private property, but it would come down to the same issue, whether it's two farmers in a land dispute or two kingdoms. If two farmers have a land dispute, they would go to a judge or a king who would make a ruling as to who owns what, and the farmers would have to go along with it, for better or worse. The king has an army, and they don't, so they have to abide by the king's ruling.

But if two kings have a dispute, then it's at a different level, since both would have armies. In Europe, a lot of those kings and queens were interrelated and sharing the same DNA, so it got rather messy and complicated at times. There were situations where the ruler of a kingdom wouldn't even speak the same language as the local inhabitants.

Language seems to be the primary component of nationalism, which could sometimes run counter to monarchism or in concert with it, depending on which nation/kingdom was involved.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think that in Europe it is a given that the European Nations legitimately own the lands, that is the European countries.
There are rights which are carved into the blood, in the DNA. Both public law and private law confirm it, by regulating kinship and children's inheritance.
If private property is a right, I don't understand why a country is not considered private property.

All of those bold words are social constructs, but they are not the only variants. As long as you apparently take your own constructs for granted as natural like say gravity, you will in effect understand other social constructs differently, than someone like me who treat all as social constructs.