5 ms·

As a younger millennial on the left, I am routinely frustrated by "anti-imperialist" attitudes (especially among my generation, and younger). I think "anti-impe

As a younger millennial on the left, I am routinely frustrated by "anti-imperialist" attitudes (especially among my generation, and younger). I think "anti-imperialist" is one of the least useful labels for a political worldview in contemporary politics. Prior to the invasion, there was rampant criticism of NATO, and calls for its dissolution, on left-wing media, as an instrument of American imperialism, despite the fact that Russia has a history of aggression against post-Soviet states (e.g. Georgia) in the 21st century. With the outbreak of the war (outside of east Ukraine), some have walked back the more extreme aspects of those statements (as NATO's potential usefulness has been illustrated), but American imperialism via NATO is still discussed in the same breath as Russian imperialism via a military invasion and territorial annexation. The truth is we have very little choice in our great powers or global hegemonies, and I will always take the NATO brand of "imperialism" (e.g. where countries literally ask for American military bases to ward against actual aggression) over the Russian brand. Should we be skeptical of NATO? Of course, as we should with all power structures, especially when they engage in actual violence; but to not have a nuanced discussion about what actual imperialism looks like in the 21st century, and to simply be blanket "anti-imperialist," is juvenile, and I'd argue probably detrimental to those that actually feel its real world effects.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
johnny22 4y ago
At least it should be easy to understand why though. If you've never seen it used for good in your own eyes, then it's easy to stick with that take.
mrguyorama 4y ago
>Prior to the invasion, there was rampant criticism of NATO, and calls for its dissolution, on left-wing media Can you provide examples? I have not seen this, and as dissolution of NATO or otherwise weakening NATO was a goal of the previous administration, I am confused at this claim.
- ksec 4y ago
  If you spend some time on Twitter and Reddit before the war you will see it everywhere.
- ravitation 4y ago
  You've vastly oversimplified the politics of the American left and right, which are themselves varied. Just because Trump criticized NATO member states and potentially weakened NATO with his rhetoric, does not mean it was ever actual policy of the mainstream Republican Party, or really even the Trump administration, to dissolve NATO. In fact, Trump himself now claims that, if not for him, there would be no NATO [1]. Trump is a president that ran on no clear platform (e.g. his 2020 presidential campaign did not even publish one) or real coherent policy. With that in mind, here is an article from 2018 in Jacobin, a left-wing magazine, saying that, regardless of Trump's comments, NATO's continued existence remains a valid question [2]; in fact, the Democratic Socialists of America (the primary progressive/socialist/labor party in the US) has calls for the US to immediately withdraw from NATO as part of its stated policy, even after the Russian invasion of western Ukraine [3]. These are among the most well stated positions regarding NATO skepticism on the American left, but similar opinions were expressed throughout left-wing independent media in the months leading up to the invasion (and earlier). 1. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-seeks-rewrite-role-bolstering-ukraine-nato/story?id=83159716 https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-seeks-rewrite-role-bolsterin... 2. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/nato-donald-trump-putin-cold-war https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/nato-donald-trump-putin-c... 3. https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/ https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukr...
  - ksec 4y ago
    Genuinely curious, When you state you are a "millennial on the left", In the context of US / Americans, does left here means Democrats, or does left here means left on the political spectrum. Or at least left in the US political spectrum. ( Since left in US and left in UK are largely if not completely different ) Because I have seen a lot of "NATO skepticism on the American left". I dont even think the word skepticism is correct. They literally wanted to cancel NATO. Wouldn't your view, in this case be more aligned as what is called centre-left? Especially in the context of US. Because if an outsider were to judge the US Left purely from Internet / Social Media / TV / Mass Media, than being pro-NATO ( so to speak ) is very much a right wing or non left wing view.
qiskit 4y ago
> despite the fact that Russia has a history of aggression against post-Soviet states (e.g. Georgia) in the 21st century. The aggression against georgia was due to NATO. Just like the current aggression against ukraine. NATO's existence is a threat to world peace just like the soviet union was. Any sane person would be for the elimination of NATO. > and I will always take the NATO brand of "imperialism" Yeah because syria, libya, etc are doing so great. NATO's imperialism has murdered far more people than russia's. Even in europe - yugoslavia. > (e.g. where countries literally ask for American military bases to ward against actual aggression) over the Russian brand. There are ukrainians who asked russia to protect them too...
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  > The aggression against georgia was due to NATO. Just like the current aggression against ukraine. NATO's existence is a threat to world peace just like the soviet union was. Any sane person would be for the elimination of NATO. A complete inversion of reality. Post-soviet states want to be part of NATO because they are afraid of Russian agression, and Russia is afraid of those states joining NATO, because that means it cannot agress against them. Hence, Russia starting border conflicts in countries that wish to join NATO in order to secure Russia's ability for further aggression later. If you don't mind me asking, do you think the invention of the nuclear bomb was a mistake, and the world would be better off if nukes wouldn't have existed (1945-)?
  - qiskit 4y ago
    > Post-soviet states want to be part of NATO because they are afraid of Russian agression, and Russia is afraid of those states joining NATO, because that means it cannot agress against them. There is some truth in that. But you are conveniently leaving out the other part. These post-soviet states are threatened with economic isolation/attacks/destruction/etc from "NATO/EU/US". Lets not pretend we are saints. The empire that needs to go today isn't the soviet union or russa. It's NATO. The greatest source of destruction, death, instability around the world. > because that means it cannot agress against them. What exactly prevents aggression against post-soviet states? Nothing. All their membership means is that they get to serve as buffers/firing range. Instead of germany or france taking the brunt of the bombs, it will be poland, latvia, etc. If russia invaded a post-soviet state, which country in NATO will come to their defense if it meant getting nuked by russia? Do you think britain is willing to get london nuked over lithuania? Think france will sacrifice paris? Every international treaty has been broken for a reason. If russia marched into poland or lithuania tomorrow, we'd all say see you in another 60 years. > If you don't mind me asking, do you think the invention of the nuclear bomb was a mistake, and the world would be better off if nukes wouldn't have existed (1945-)? No. I think every country should get nukes. Who doesn't want ukraine to get nukes? Russia and NATO. Think about it. Who doesn't want poland, lithuania, estonia, etc from getting nukes? NATO. What would have kept ukraine safe? What would keep post-soviet states safe? Nukes. Lonely north korea angrily firing missiles into the sea of japan is far more secure than any post soviet state in NATO. You would think these post-soviet states would have learned their lesson, but they apparently have not. The only thing these countries have going for them is russia's weak economic position and the lack of incentive to invade post soviet states. Simple as that. Is there any sane lithuanian who truly believes any country is willing to suffer nuclear destruction on their behalf?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

johnny22 4y ago

At least it should be easy to understand why though. If you've never seen it used for good in your own eyes, then it's easy to stick with that take.

mrguyorama 4y ago

>Prior to the invasion, there was rampant criticism of NATO, and calls for its dissolution, on left-wing media Can you provide examples? I have not seen this, and as dissolution of NATO or otherwise weakening NATO was a goal of the previous administration, I am confused at this claim.

ksec 4y ago
If you spend some time on Twitter and Reddit before the war you will see it everywhere.
ravitation 4y ago
You've vastly oversimplified the politics of the American left and right, which are themselves varied. Just because Trump criticized NATO member states and potentially weakened NATO with his rhetoric, does not mean it was ever actual policy of the mainstream Republican Party, or really even the Trump administration, to dissolve NATO. In fact, Trump himself now claims that, if not for him, there would be no NATO [1]. Trump is a president that ran on no clear platform (e.g. his 2020 presidential campaign did not even publish one) or real coherent policy. With that in mind, here is an article from 2018 in Jacobin, a left-wing magazine, saying that, regardless of Trump's comments, NATO's continued existence remains a valid question [2]; in fact, the Democratic Socialists of America (the primary progressive/socialist/labor party in the US) has calls for the US to immediately withdraw from NATO as part of its stated policy, even after the Russian invasion of western Ukraine [3]. These are among the most well stated positions regarding NATO skepticism on the American left, but similar opinions were expressed throughout left-wing independent media in the months leading up to the invasion (and earlier). 1. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-seeks-rewrite-role-bolstering-ukraine-nato/story?id=83159716 https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-seeks-rewrite-role-bolsterin... 2. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/nato-donald-trump-putin-cold-war https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/nato-donald-trump-putin-c... 3. https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/ https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukr...
- ksec 4y ago
  Genuinely curious, When you state you are a "millennial on the left", In the context of US / Americans, does left here means Democrats, or does left here means left on the political spectrum. Or at least left in the US political spectrum. ( Since left in US and left in UK are largely if not completely different ) Because I have seen a lot of "NATO skepticism on the American left". I dont even think the word skepticism is correct. They literally wanted to cancel NATO. Wouldn't your view, in this case be more aligned as what is called centre-left? Especially in the context of US. Because if an outsider were to judge the US Left purely from Internet / Social Media / TV / Mass Media, than being pro-NATO ( so to speak ) is very much a right wing or non left wing view.

qiskit 4y ago

> despite the fact that Russia has a history of aggression against post-Soviet states (e.g. Georgia) in the 21st century. The aggression against georgia was due to NATO. Just like the current aggression against ukraine. NATO's existence is a threat to world peace just like the soviet union was. Any sane person would be for the elimination of NATO. > and I will always take the NATO brand of "imperialism" Yeah because syria, libya, etc are doing so great. NATO's imperialism has murdered far more people than russia's. Even in europe - yugoslavia. > (e.g. where countries literally ask for American military bases to ward against actual aggression) over the Russian brand. There are ukrainians who asked russia to protect them too...

formerly_proven 4y ago
> The aggression against georgia was due to NATO. Just like the current aggression against ukraine. NATO's existence is a threat to world peace just like the soviet union was. Any sane person would be for the elimination of NATO. A complete inversion of reality. Post-soviet states want to be part of NATO because they are afraid of Russian agression, and Russia is afraid of those states joining NATO, because that means it cannot agress against them. Hence, Russia starting border conflicts in countries that wish to join NATO in order to secure Russia's ability for further aggression later. If you don't mind me asking, do you think the invention of the nuclear bomb was a mistake, and the world would be better off if nukes wouldn't have existed (1945-)?
- qiskit 4y ago
  > Post-soviet states want to be part of NATO because they are afraid of Russian agression, and Russia is afraid of those states joining NATO, because that means it cannot agress against them. There is some truth in that. But you are conveniently leaving out the other part. These post-soviet states are threatened with economic isolation/attacks/destruction/etc from "NATO/EU/US". Lets not pretend we are saints. The empire that needs to go today isn't the soviet union or russa. It's NATO. The greatest source of destruction, death, instability around the world. > because that means it cannot agress against them. What exactly prevents aggression against post-soviet states? Nothing. All their membership means is that they get to serve as buffers/firing range. Instead of germany or france taking the brunt of the bombs, it will be poland, latvia, etc. If russia invaded a post-soviet state, which country in NATO will come to their defense if it meant getting nuked by russia? Do you think britain is willing to get london nuked over lithuania? Think france will sacrifice paris? Every international treaty has been broken for a reason. If russia marched into poland or lithuania tomorrow, we'd all say see you in another 60 years. > If you don't mind me asking, do you think the invention of the nuclear bomb was a mistake, and the world would be better off if nukes wouldn't have existed (1945-)? No. I think every country should get nukes. Who doesn't want ukraine to get nukes? Russia and NATO. Think about it. Who doesn't want poland, lithuania, estonia, etc from getting nukes? NATO. What would have kept ukraine safe? What would keep post-soviet states safe? Nukes. Lonely north korea angrily firing missiles into the sea of japan is far more secure than any post soviet state in NATO. You would think these post-soviet states would have learned their lesson, but they apparently have not. The only thing these countries have going for them is russia's weak economic position and the lack of incentive to invade post soviet states. Simple as that. Is there any sane lithuanian who truly believes any country is willing to suffer nuclear destruction on their behalf?