I’m trying to learn more about the Russia/Ukraine conflict. In the articles that I find that seem to be critical of Ukraine, there are a few that are right wing that seem to have similar viewpoints as what I’ve read on here or in the more leftist articles.
For example this piece from National Interest, or this from the CATO institute.
There are others that aren’t flagged as right wing that are critical, but it’s just got me wondering, why would right wing politicians/publications perceive these things similarly to how some communists would when the ideologies of both are so extremely opposite?
Disclaimer: I’m not pro-ukraine at all, but in my search for info that’s not super pro-Ukraine propaganda, this is the stuff that comes up for me
different people can come to the same conclusions for different reasons.
- reactionaries sometimes come to the conclusion that capitalism is bad. Not because of bourgeoisie vs. proletariat or theft of surplus value, but because it’s “destroying the family” or “turning everyone woke” or it’s “run by the jews” or it’s “bringing too many immigrants to my country”
- communists come to the conclusion that capitalism is bad because it oppresses the proletariat and is closely linked with imperialism and colonialism, and various oppressions and phobias against vulnerable and marginalized groups.
- same conclusion, different reasons behind it.
different people can also come to different conclusions for the same reasons.
- pacifists come to the conclusion that it is wrong to use violence because they are against oppression.
- communists come to the conclusion that it is correct to use violence because they are against oppression.
- different conclusions, same reasons behind it.
so looking at Ukraine. You often see conservative foreign policy realists like John Mearsheimer for example, calling out America’s role in this conflict. Why does he disagree with it? Is it because he’s against American imperialism in Eastern Europe? No. Is it because he’s against NATO? No. Is it because he wants Russia to win? No. He loves American imperialism. He’s in favor of NATO. He wants America to win. He views America’s role in Ukraine as a strategic failure. The empire overextending itself and accelerating its own decline by biting off more than it can chew. His critique is entirely strategic. He thinks America has strategically failed to do imperialism competently. He wants the imperialism to be more competent. Compare that with a Communist critique which is against NATO expansion, which recognizes the NED’s role in funding right wing extremism in Ukraine for decades, which understands that the Neo-Nazi Banderites used Euromaidan as a Trojan horse to coup the Yanukovich government, which understands that America is trying to balkanize and isolate countries that have a history of socialism, even if that history is long over.
Some people childishly see Communists and Conservatives coming to similar conclusions, but for different reasons, and moving from opposite directions. They are unable to do vector calculus on our political positions. All they see is two people occupying the same point on the graph. They don’t see what direction they’re moving towards, where they came from, or any other nuance, and they conclude “these people are allied with each other because they agree on this one thing.”
He wants the imperialism to be more competent
lol this is such a great phrasing and I think helps to answer my question pretty fully. I also appreciate how you described horseshoe theory perspective that most libs/“centrists” have. Context seems to almost never be taken into account, for anything. Not having rich context is what has made me apprehensive to voice a strong opinion on the Russia/Ukraine conflict. I just know that the backing of the US already made me extremely suspicious of it from the get and that there was more going on than “Russia bad scary evil guys who want to dominate!!!”.
I had just started reading up about the conflict more in depth the night that I posted the question, and after reading everyone’s responses I just went back to see that there is no meaningful discussion around the Nazi infiltration (of course). I plan to re-read them both and I hope that it will be much more clear to me the objectives of the writers in contrast with the general communist stance
Sometimes its the funny outcome of seeing groups use rhetorical arguments as cover for what they really believe.
So a right wing isolationist and an anti-imperialist antifascist can both state “hey, maybe the war in Ukraine is a bad thing”. But the reasons behind the statement will be wildly different.
Being able to mask an ideology behind rhetoric also allows a group to gain support or legitimacy from other groups that would otherwise be critical or hostile. Right wingers love to make rhetorical arguments based around “we must protect the children”. This sentiment is pretty simple and not controversial in any way. So people who can’t/don’t/won’t look too deep into what the right wingers are actually going to do to “protect the children” will wind up doing the work of defending their project from the people who are aware of the true goals of the right wing project.
Its one of those things that requires the extreme use of “consider the source” when trying to understand why similar arguments/rhetoric can be seen deployed by groups with wildly different ideological worldviews.
So in this instance, a lot of people have pointed towards China being the reason for this position. So then would the “source” be that they are more concerned with propping up Russia to thwart China’s economic growth?
yeah… there’s a strain of right wing argumentation that says “Get Russia engaged in some boondoggle of epic military proportions” with a goal of 1) destabalizing a nation with a large land border with China (the Anti-China groups) or 2) just straight up believing that Russia, itself, is some existential threat to the USA (old Cold War-riers )
Though it may have less to do with China’s economic growth ( at least from some groups) as it would be with trying to do some “accellerationism” and try to push China into a position where they’d openly have to retaliate militarily which would give the USA/West an excuse to be even more openly hostile towards China (and definitely WAY more hostile towards any nations who are allied with or in the orbit of China). These do-do birds still think that the US military is actually as competent, resilient and strong as their own propaganda constantly states… which isn’t true and would just lead to a large chunk of the planet burning through conventional or nuclear warfare.
I assume by “right wing” you are actually trying to mean Republicans and their followers. But both Democrats and Republicans are right-wing. Republicans oppose Democrats’ wars, sometimes only rhetorically while they materially support them as soon as they get down off the podium, and sometimes (somewhat) materially because they, themselves, would rather be fighting different wars at the moment or making other (e.g. domestic) changes that require them to get the upper hand in the moment in their petty bickering with their donkey-branded co-fascists.
In politically opposing a war for any reasons, you are going to search for arguments that help convince large numbers of people to agree with you and back your political moves. The truth lends powerful such arguments. So Republicans wind up using (some) truth in their arguments against the war that has been the Democrats’ baby for the last 15 or so years. Biden was fighting this war back when he was vice president, and Obama let him and Hillary and the other neocons he put in the State Department pretty much have it, while he got off on personally overseeing drone murders in Syria and other places. It’s part of a larger NATO expansion and “new” (same as the old) Cold War that both Democrats and Republicans have been waging since the 1980s. But this facet of it has become the Democrats’ baby. So (some) Republicans oppose it. Often rhetorically, but some—and growing now, as it’s losing its new-car smell—oppose it more materially because they’d rather be focusing on China.
Leftists, on the other hand, oppose this war because being anti-war is necessary and inherent to leftism. So we’re going to use some of the same fact-based arguments that people who oppose it for other reasons also use. NATO provoked this war. It orchestrated a coup in Ukraine, and it backed Ukraine’s fascist government as it went about the goal of committing genocide against people in Donbass and eastern Ukraine in general (and Jews, and Roma, etc.). And it gleefully threw weapons and Ukrainian lives and Europe’s heating and much of Europe’s economy into the grinder in an effort to “bleed Russia”. There’s not really any disputing that if you simply look at the history, and don’t delude yourself about imperialism or how things extended back a long way past February 2022. If Republicans touch on some of that, just know that they’re not doing it for the right reasons, and they’ll gladly twist it into nationalism, antisemitism, anti-Slav bigotry, etc. in a heartbeat. Don’t be fooled. Aspects of the truth can be used as propaganda too (at its heart, propaganda isn’t just a synonym for “lies”, but manipulation based on emotion and other social influence rather than real argument). But because it’s not grounded in consistent philosophy or principle, it’s only a fleeting affair and will resist attempts to tie it into a broader analysis that would be consistent with the momentary, opportunistic stance. Do Republicans oppose imperialism? Of course not. Do they oppose war? Of course not. Do they oppose genocide? Of course not. Do they want working-class people to have a say in how we wield arms? Of course not.
Yes I was referring to Republicans, I do not consider Democrats to be leftists in the least lol. I appreciate your detailed response; I suppose it’s just always bizarre to me when Republican talking points converge. I imagine that if you ever were to say to a Republican that their stance on the war is a communist stance they would lose their fucking minds. I just started trying to research the conflict the night that I posted this and found out about the Euromaidan coup and all of that so I’m starting to get some context; but I also don’t know a lot about China either. Having a broader understanding of the relationships between the 3 (US, Russia, China) and NATO would probably help answer a lot of these questions for me, so I guess I better get to researching
Liberals are happy with the status quo. The right says the status quo needs to change. We say it needs to change. So there is some similarity.
Also large institutions put small bits of class consciousness into right wing talking points to make sure liberals oppose it. Just to muddy the waters a little.
leftists want the status quo to change in order to preserve ecology, climate, and human rights
rightists want the status quo to change bc they think it’s not efficient enough in murdering gay people and POC
this is also why the white right are always morons, any sentient person on that side would realize the status quo supports their collective interests
Antisemitism (or fascism) is the socialism of fools, and fascists capitalize off of it. Hence why Adolf Hitler called his party the “German worker’s party” as well as “national socialists”. Even the name Volkswagen translates to ‘people’s car’.
Especially in the US although you’ll see it everywhere, you’ll see CHUDs consistently go “nuh uh, we’re the REAL party of the working class, and the enemy isn’t necessarily the ruling class, it’s just that too many of the underclass rubes achieved power they were never supposed to, and that’s what’s lowering your standard of living!”. At least sometimes the UK Tory party’s sell is “you are elites like us too, let’s stick together and put those uppity lower-class poors in their place.”
