https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/1/24/how-western-scholars-overlooked-russian-imperialism How Western scholars (& @glynch) overlooked Russian imperialism For far too long, Western academia has ignored the legacies of the Russian Empire and colonisation. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February, discussions emerged about the imperial nature of the war. Scholars who spoke up about it were quickly dismissed in certain Western academic and political circles. Some, especially the self-professed “anti-imperialists”, claimed Russia was “provoked” and portrayed Ukraine’s resistance as a “Western imperial” plot. Others considered analyses of Russian imperialism as having a pro-war, hawkish agenda or being a reflection of narrow ethno-nationalist sentiments. But for scholars from the post-Soviet space – from places that have suffered from Russian aggression and imperialism – these reactions were hardly a surprise. They had been ignored and dismissed before. Discussions of Russian imperialism have long been overlooked while American, British and French imperialisms have been studied closely and thoroughly. This has much to do with how Western academia and to a certain extent political elites have chosen to approach the Soviet Union and its eventual dissolution. From empire to a ‘union’ Russian imperial ambitions date back to the 16th century when the Grand Principality of Moscow, or Muscovy, proclaimed itself the third Rome, the successor of the Byzantine Empire and protector of all Orthodox Christians. The Russian imperial army fought numerous wars in the east, west and south, and by the mid-19th century, Russia had become the largest land empire. Along with the British, Austro-Hungarian and French empires, it understood and presented itself as a European colonial power. Following the October Revolution in 1917, the Bolsheviks proclaimed the end of the Russian monarchy and Russian imperialism, but they fought brutally to preserve the Russian imperial borders. They reconquered newly formed independent states, such as Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, which emerged after the collapse of the Russian Empire. In the early 1930s, Joseph Stalin embraced Russian nationalism based on the old imperial myth of the greatness of the Russian people. Bolshevik Moscow made ethnic Russians the most privileged group in the Soviet Union and sent Russian settlers to populate and control non-Russian regions. Purging native leaders, forcefully resettling entire ethnic groups and creating conditions that led to mass deaths were all part of Soviet colonisation. Non-Russian people’s cultures, languages and histories were disparaged while Russification was presented as enlightenment. At the same time, the Soviet Union adopted a progressive narrative of enfranchising nations conquered by the Russian Empire and giving them national rights within the Soviet Union. Many in Western academia bought into the anti-colonial narrative Moscow was trying to sell because they took official proclamations at face value and wanted to believe in the story of communist anti-imperialism. To understand Russia, one needs to listen to those who lived under Russian colonial rule. To understand former and current Russian colonies, one needs to listen to historians from these places and study their cultures, languages and histories, both written and unwritten. To appreciate the ways out of colonial dictatorships, one needs to study the successful transformations of states like Ukraine. This would require dismissing the myth of the “artificial nation” and finally seeing Russia as an empire.
Ukraine Makes ‘Tactically Significant’ Progress in Its Counteroffensive Troops advanced 10 to 12 miles along two main lines of attack in Kyiv’s drive to reach the southern coast and sever Russian supply lines, while explosions echoed at the vital Kerch Strait Bridge. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/12/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war.html
the irony of Stalin, who was ethnically Georgian, adopting Russian nationalism as a means to control the Soviet Union...
Technically that is what Ukraine is doing during this summer's counter offensive. The Russian are defending a very long defensive line. The Ukraine's need to find the weakness point and break through there. This is just a matter of time. After the break through, the Ukraine can either make a run to Crimea or double back and attack the Russian defensive lines.
@glynch is a bernie bro. In his eyes ameeica is the worst country in the world and responsible for every bad thing happened in the world. When AOC was asked about the war in the early days she blamed the military establishment for the invasion. Lefties will never be in power cuz their crazy people Lefties and MAGA aka horseshoe theory is very real. Both lefties and MAGA are crazy
The GOP’s Man in Kyiv - POLITICO “I get forwarded TV clips of Russian propaganda and I look at that and I would see it on the Tucker Carlson show the next night,” Moore complains. “And the night after that, those same Kremlin-supported TV shows would show a clip of Tucker Carlson saying, ‘At least one American has it right.’” The Tucker Carlsons of the world have it all wrong in Moore’s mind. Yet, the Carlson echo chamber catches the ear of many Republican voters who then call their representatives. Moore sees part of his job as fending off disinformation and sharing his perspective with his former House colleagues over Zoom calls and other apps while in Ukraine. “Many have serious concerns about spending, corruption and the direction of the war,” he acknowledges, and he strives to address them. Are the weapons going into the right hands? Moore suggests to skeptical lawmakers that they talk with the Ukraine office that uses inventory software as exacting as NATO and the Pentagon. Corruption? Ukraine is addressing it as forcefully as possible in a wartime environment. Check with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. And as for progress on the battlefield, Moore insists the U.S. is investing on the right side of democracy and fighting fascism. “This is the best use of foreign aid I have ever seen. Ukraine is getting second-hand weapons — much headed to the trash heap — and they’re winning.” The Pentagon spends roughly $750 billion a year, he notes, in part to deter Russian expansionism. And for 15 percent of that total, Moore argues, Russia has gone from being considered the second most powerful military in the world to the second most powerful in Ukraine. “If you’re a fiscal conservative, you know this is a great use of taxpayer dollars. And not one single American soldier has had to die.”
Have we given them the good stuff? Modern warfare tools? F16s? Howitzers? Older Abrahms? You’d fight to the death for freedom. I said I’d rather have life over freedom. Life of my family and friends. Ukraine is getting destroyed. They are doing better than I expected but the end result is that they are going to lose. If they want to keep the fight up it might be 5 years…maybe 10 years. But the country will be massacred by then. Putin isn’t backing down.
Nope we have mostly given them stuff we had in storage or last generation materials - and we are still whopping Russia's ass with our old equpment. IIRC anything new or modern will be in a lend lease program. DD
There's not a lot of evidence as of yet that Ukraine has the ability to defeat Russia. But there's also no evidence thus far that Russia has the ability to beat Ukraine. Defense wins right now. Same as Iraq, Afghanistan (ours and Russia's), and a bunch of other wars over the past 40 years. WW2 lasted more than 5 years. So did the Revolutionary War. Some wars are worth fighting, even to the people who are dying. Ukraine wants to fight to defend their country. Our only choice in the matter is whether to help them or not.
Rather than calling them all crazy, etc. I would point to the root of the problem which is an obvious issue of having given up on America as a Democratic Constitutional Republic... or whatever this framework was that was set in motion by our founders. It's a fundamental belief that the system is broken beyond repair, and needs to be gutted.... typically by a single figure. But there's a huge difference in the left and the right. I would recommend watching/listening to Thom Hartman's show sometime this week to hear the lefities that get it, and have a deep sense of pragmatism. Those that caucus in the Progressive caucus are for the vast majority very pragmatic too like Ro Khanna, Marc Pocan, etc. The small minority of Progressives/Dem Socialists that talk the Noam Chomsky talking points have fully given up on our Constitution, and want a full re-do. Ignore the rules and JUST MAKE IT HAPPEN. When they call into radio shows, etc. they always naively say stuff like "What we should do is..." and then say something that cannot happen without 2/3 Senate vote, half of the House, etc. It's a level of ignorance for the rules, and a desire to have someone who thinks like them that can just snap their fingers and make it happen. (there's also the problem of how many of the old school Dem Socialists in the media like Amy Goodman, Chomsky, etc. had a working relationship or just straight up worked for RT. So there actually is ties to Russia, or a post Soviet philosophical, and financial tie. But there are few in the left media still with those ties even though it is a cancer that needs to be taken care of.) I know it's hard to ask, but maybe we should find a way to contextualize the problem here a bit better. Which is fundamental belief in the rule of law, and a wider understanding of aspiring to push for progressive changes without needing to aspire to an autocratic way of doing it.
Depends on what you consider "Russian Defeat." If being able to push Russia out of Ukraine fully which creates an untenable political situation in Russia that leads to change.... yeah I'd say Ukraine has that ability for sure. It's the simple task of being able to break through the lines and incircle Russian troops which could be spread way too thin to begin with. Once the Russian's are out, the war is essentially over. Of course they can keep sending the occasional terrorist bombs and kill innocent civilians just to be dicks, but those are more terrorist actions than full scale invasion tactics aimed at winning anything. Does that mean it's likely though???.... I dunno. It depends on how long the West has the appetite to resupply their ammo, and weapons. As well as how well they trained this group of troops, and how well they'll keep training new recruits of Ukrainians. IMO the only thing that can stop that from happening is Trump winning in 2024... which if he does that the world will be in a whole new dangerous place where the most powerful country in the free world just voted to put in place a guy sitting in a jail cell for attempting a coup, and openly speaks of himself as a Messiac Autocratic leader with no bounds to the rule of law. That has implications far beyond just the war in Ukraine. If he's elected, the rule of law in the US is toast, and you'll see a ripple effect of the EU/NATO breaking from the US, and becoming their own thing, and settling in for what will be a huge target on their back. So I'd say it's likely actually that Ukraine does pretty much win (maybe they sacrifice some land in the East just to end the war early, etc.), but the prospects of them losing scares the crap out of me because of what had to happen for the West to back out of the obligation to train, and supply the Ukranians.
I don’t know where people get the idea that Ukraine is getting destroyed. Yes the damage from the war is bad but the country and government appear to be standing. There’s been reports of even an active night life in Kyiv and other cities. Yes Russia is vastly larger than Ukraine that doesn’t mean that Ukraine is doomed to lose. Larger countries have lost wars to smaller countries and Russia own history there are several examples of that. Russia own history also shows how hard it is for a large invading force fighting a protracted battle against determined locals in their own territory.
