TΛVΛR
Kinda surprised to see Germany at 4
That is incorrect. Stages of grief do not only apply to terminal conditions where acceptance is fatalistic.
Say you suffer the loss of a loved one. Accepting that they are gone holds within itself the key to continue your live. Acceptance, plain and simple, is a necessity to deal with reality.
Similarly the acceptance that the capitalist system is inherently “broken” enables us to figure out how to deal with that reality, how to overcome its contradictions.
Denying that many of humanities problems are rooted in capitalism does not. The comparison is valid
I totally get your perspective too: you could swap acceptance and denial. Capitalists accept the justification of the status quo while MLs deny it.
In the context of grieve I think Yogthos’ perspective is more fitting: “Denial” is the denial that anything is wrong with the system and “Acceptance” of both facts, that the system is fundamentally flawed and that a pursuit of any idealistic one doesn’t bear fruit is the necessary precursor for conducting a sober analysis
Just to be clear: You can reject both, but compared to the invasion of Iraq the justification for the invasion of Ukraine is sound.
If @xkyfal18 justifies the invasion of Ukraine but does not justify the invasion of Iraq that is a consistent position, your trying to isolate the regime change aspect amongst all justifications is a fallacy typical for the metaphysical thinking of a liberal. By adding that constraint you’re ridiculing your own question
Also nearly everybody would support regime-changing hitler, does that mean everybody supported the invasion of Iraq bc they support regime change in one instance? Ofc not. I hope even you can see the idiocy of that argument.
Now back to the premise: Even if you ignore the worst US lies, both invasions are ultimately justified with “national security” (the purpose of a military after all)
Well one (the invasion of Ukraine) is the response to a hostile superpower inciting a nazi-powered coup + civil war on your border with the aim of eventually regime changing you.
And the other one (the invasion of Iraq) is you being the hegemonic superpower devastating a country on the other side of the planet without any threat at all, on a whim (well imperialism actually)
Ofc both amounted to one country imposing their interests over another, but whose were more justified? What threatens “national security” more? A civil war on the border or peace in some far-away country?
Like I said: Oppose both: ok. But it needs pointing out, that people who justify the invasion of Iraq are categorically monstrous
Ofc I realize you didn’t justify the invasion of Iraq. But you also alluded to the US as a protective power while calling out Russia as belligerent, implying Russia would be more warlike than the West, the most murderous power structure humanity was ever doomed with.
The metaphysical need to atomize and isolate things (like the aspect of regime-change in Ukraine/Iraq) isn’t practical in discussions about geopolitics.
It only leads to ridiculously irrelevant comparisons, as evidenced…
You will probably not take it as honest advice atp, but I mean it: Liberalism implicitly teaches us Metaphysics and it sucks hard. It does not give us the tools for a proper analysis, it gives only an approximation of reality that is practical when its error is tolerable, but it is often not. looking into dialectics is imperative.
Its so unfortunate that so many people, like yourself, have not been paying attention to Ukraine in the last decades.
With Russia finally having reacted violently, our war propagandists are having a field day with your brains.
Chances are you already are immune to historic fact and prefer some Neocon giving you their speculation on a foreign leaders psyche instead.
It was in fact the US-centered, imperial power structure which tried its hardest to make peace impossible.
On the off chance that you can still tell information from garbage read some influential imperial strategists from 2019 for an introduction:
This was my last, longer comment about her (party).
While it would be absurd for a Socialist to mistake her for a comrade, your scepticism towards her “problematization” (especially by liberals) is very warranted.
It depends on who you compare her to. 30 years ago, she was a Socialist, compared to that modern day Wagenknecht is very bad.
However if you compare her party to the German Bundestag, then 99+/-1% are more “problematic”. As an example: for the longest time her new party stood alone in the parliament in opposing weapons exports that facilitate an active genocide (her old left party recently managed to overcome internal resistance and silently join her in that conclusion, though I wonder if its members know).
I share and understand the frustration comrades have with some of her stances / rhetoric, but if you view imperialism or more specifically hyper-imperialism (as tricontinental calls it) as the main contradiction of our time - which I do - then both become clear: why she is in no way among the most “problematic” and also why she is constantly made out to be by the transatlantic media
So yeah a comrades criticism of her is very valid (as I guess they don’t support any other party in the parliament either), a liberals is - as always - massively hypocritical
I feel like whats desperately missing is a proper critique of capital.
If you reject it (bc “commies / tankies / Nth iteration of red-scare”) you simply won’t be able to understand the world, period.
Instead what you end up with invariably will be an “explanation” rooted in grave error, blaming an ethnic group, “globalists”,…
Ofc by suppressing Marxist lessons the ruling ideology incentivizes this reaction (as does liberalism being rooted in metaphysics even)
Ppl might be reading this wrong (or am I?)
incident reported to OPCW by the Government of Syria
In this instance it looks like it was the Syrian gov who reported to the OPCW an incident where they were alleging the use of chemical weapons by ISIS against Aknaf group.
So it OPCW seems to say that the Syrian govs accusations are false