No no no! You’re not allowed to talk about the US laying claim to huge swaths of the Ukrainian interior in exchange for another round of weapons imports. My libertarian friends told me that this is fine because the US is getting the land through contracts, which are totally bloodless and not in any way an infringement on the rights of the Ukrainian native peoples.
The above comic only applies to folks on the Eastern side of the big line. Westerners would never exploit the precarious position of Ukrainian nationalists to rob them, press-gang them into front-line combat rolls, and then snatch up all the vacant real estate once the smoke clears.
They come here with their nonsnense equalizing a regular war to a genocide going on right now, the comic doesn’t even make sense in the situation of Ukraine, it’s about settler colonialism, something Russia doesn’t do
Edit: this is like coming under a post about the holocaust and talking about “this is just like the white genocide in south africa”
it’s about settler colonialism, something Russia doesn’t do
Okay, tap the breaks dude.
I’ll spot you that Ukraine/Russia is the latest in a long line of proxy wars between Eastern and Western oligarchs. And I’ll happily concede that Ukrainians are being swindled by their NATO “allies” while they’re forced to play punching bag in order to exhaust its historical enemy. I’ll even through in a “Maidan was a color revolution and liberal Ukrainians got royally played”.
But the idea that Russians aren’t above a little expansionism and exploitation is just… my god, man. Literally centuries of history to the contrary.
How on Earth is it not settler colonialism when Russia engages in a prolonged campaign of trying to russify the Ukranian language, heavily propogandizing those in border regions to either get them to apply for, or either grant them Russian passports/citizenship, then they claim the rightful borders have moved, then invade and capture those border areas (and others), and then emgage in ethnic cleansing within those border areas?
Please, explain to me how that isn’t settler colonialism, just with a few initial, semi-novel/semi-uncommon extra steps?
You don’t read books or theory about colonialism, you don’t look at the news or the current event, you give vibe based “analysis” of the situation, and you want me to explain the entirety of colonialism from beginning to end just because your lazy ass won’t read Frantz Fanon.
Ok so I actually have a degree in Poli Sci and another degree in Econ, I have read quite a lot of theory, often got into arguments with my NeoLiberal professors over things like the IMF, WorldBank, how to evaluate systemic risk in financial markets, the idea of bailing out Wall Street during the GFC instead of jailing them all as corrupt, as Iceland did, once got a bad mark on a paper about conflict goods because my PoliSci prof simply refused to acknowledge that US Army troops were guarding opium farms in Afghanistan, independently sought out and studied modern Marxist economists outside of the scope of course work, etc etc.
I want you to explain, in a couple sentences, or paragraphs if you need to… how the situation I described above either is not settler colonialism, or is a wildly innacurate mischaracterization of the situation, or some mix of both.
Not just yell ‘read theory!’ at me and give me an author name.
I do not need the entire concept of settler colonialism explained to me. I am familiar with it.
If you’ve read and understood Fanon, you should be able to… you know, make that argument.
Succinctly.
In your own words.
Otherwise you’re just a pretentious hipster, arrogantly name dropping authors and scoffing.
In simple words, in colonialism a country invades another country in the aim of taking its resources or exploiting and descriminating against its population or in the case of settler colonialism wiping them out and replacing them, what Russia has done is use military power to invade an area not controlled by it to change their ruling class, they want to make the population have a Russian citizenship and for the land to be under the map of Russia.
A citizen of an eastern Oblast of Ukraine after Russia takes over will still be the same as he was earlier, just now with a Russian citizenship. Just like how people in Crimea were Ukrainian citizens before 2014, but after they became Russian citizens, and Crimea is treated as a part of Russia (although not recognized by a lot of countries).
A Palestinian citizen after the colonialism of Palestine now lives either abroad or in a concentration camp or is dead.
Settler colonialism a form of imperialism (theft of land, labor and natural resources of a weaker country by a stronger one), where the stronger country sets up a military garrison, and evicts or enslaves the local population. This is border conflict to halt the ever-eastward march of NATO.
The accusations of “russifying the ukrainian language” is pure projection; its the banderites who (with NATO help, Obama bragged about this one) couped Ukraine in 2014 (and who were killing thousands of civilians in the donbass) that have been attempting to make spoken russian illegal in the country. They’ve also been reviving nazi collaborators and building monuments to them as fast as they can.
It was the Bolsheviks (Stalin especially) who strongly supported the creation of a Ukrainian state, as it had a distinct national, lingual, and cultural character, while the western nations were opposed to Ukrainian sovereignty (The fascist dictatorhips of the 30s were essentially at war with all slavic peoples). Modern Russia wants to preserve Ukraine as a buffer state (as it was before 2014). There are many ppl more knowledgeable on lemmygrad and hexbear, that could give you a long background on this conflict.
Yep, Russia stole third of Ukraine and tries to pretend it’s a part of their country not because they’re doing colonialism, but because… um… nothing I guess, it’s not happening actually. All the Ukranians just deciding to die of natural causes there.
Hey, let’s compare definitions.
In my books, it’s when a big country tries to take some land, usually rich in resources, murder those parts of local population who disagrees with that, and make the rest into a workforce, taking all the resources into metropolis.
Now, given that, what parts of Russian relationships with Crimea, Donbass, and Lugansk regions don’t fit this definition? Well, apart from the fact that Russian military force is a military farce and they fail at all their plans except one when they murder local population.
Or do you think attempted colonialism doesn’t count? Because it’s not for the lack of trying, you know
It’s only Colonialism if it’s from Colonial region of the world, otherwise it’s sparkling war with the exploitative and/or genocidal purposes, and then it’s OK if it’s the country that I like. You wouldn’t understand, lib.
It’s real cute how you can just infer the genocidal and exploitative purposes when it’s an enemy of the US, but you’re a Russian disinfo bot in the pocket of China when you point out at the many examples of US proxies going “We think they’re lower than animals and we’re literally gonna exterminate them and their children”
Exactly, the Nazis in the Ukrainian government are sending Ukranians into meat grinders for the profits of the U.S. empire
No no no! You’re not allowed to talk about the US laying claim to huge swaths of the Ukrainian interior in exchange for another round of weapons imports. My libertarian friends told me that this is fine because the US is getting the land through contracts, which are totally bloodless and not in any way an infringement on the rights of the Ukrainian native peoples.
The above comic only applies to folks on the Eastern side of the big line. Westerners would never exploit the precarious position of Ukrainian nationalists to rob them, press-gang them into front-line combat rolls, and then snatch up all the vacant real estate once the smoke clears.
Aaaaand there it is.
They come here with their nonsnense equalizing a regular war to a genocide going on right now, the comic doesn’t even make sense in the situation of Ukraine, it’s about settler colonialism, something Russia doesn’t do
Edit: this is like coming under a post about the holocaust and talking about “this is just like the white genocide in south africa”
Okay, tap the breaks dude.
I’ll spot you that Ukraine/Russia is the latest in a long line of proxy wars between Eastern and Western oligarchs. And I’ll happily concede that Ukrainians are being swindled by their NATO “allies” while they’re forced to play punching bag in order to exhaust its historical enemy. I’ll even through in a “Maidan was a color revolution and liberal Ukrainians got royally played”.
But the idea that Russians aren’t above a little expansionism and exploitation is just… my god, man. Literally centuries of history to the contrary.
How on Earth is it not settler colonialism when Russia engages in a prolonged campaign of trying to russify the Ukranian language, heavily propogandizing those in border regions to either get them to apply for, or either grant them Russian passports/citizenship, then they claim the rightful borders have moved, then invade and capture those border areas (and others), and then emgage in ethnic cleansing within those border areas?
Please, explain to me how that isn’t settler colonialism, just with a few initial, semi-novel/semi-uncommon extra steps?
you don’t know what is settler colonialism and you don’t know what is reality, gtfo don’t compare Palestine to Ukraine
Would you care to explain anything, or do you just want to have a hissy fit?
You don’t read books or theory about colonialism, you don’t look at the news or the current event, you give vibe based “analysis” of the situation, and you want me to explain the entirety of colonialism from beginning to end just because your lazy ass won’t read Frantz Fanon.
Ok so I actually have a degree in Poli Sci and another degree in Econ, I have read quite a lot of theory, often got into arguments with my NeoLiberal professors over things like the IMF, WorldBank, how to evaluate systemic risk in financial markets, the idea of bailing out Wall Street during the GFC instead of jailing them all as corrupt, as Iceland did, once got a bad mark on a paper about conflict goods because my PoliSci prof simply refused to acknowledge that US Army troops were guarding opium farms in Afghanistan, independently sought out and studied modern Marxist economists outside of the scope of course work, etc etc.
I want you to explain, in a couple sentences, or paragraphs if you need to… how the situation I described above either is not settler colonialism, or is a wildly innacurate mischaracterization of the situation, or some mix of both.
Not just yell ‘read theory!’ at me and give me an author name.
I do not need the entire concept of settler colonialism explained to me. I am familiar with it.
If you’ve read and understood Fanon, you should be able to… you know, make that argument.
Succinctly.
In your own words.
Otherwise you’re just a pretentious hipster, arrogantly name dropping authors and scoffing.
You’re trying to start an appeal to authority here while clearly being full of shit 😂 it’s giving me third party embarrassment.
In simple words, in colonialism a country invades another country in the aim of taking its resources or exploiting and descriminating against its population or in the case of settler colonialism wiping them out and replacing them, what Russia has done is use military power to invade an area not controlled by it to change their ruling class, they want to make the population have a Russian citizenship and for the land to be under the map of Russia.
A citizen of an eastern Oblast of Ukraine after Russia takes over will still be the same as he was earlier, just now with a Russian citizenship. Just like how people in Crimea were Ukrainian citizens before 2014, but after they became Russian citizens, and Crimea is treated as a part of Russia (although not recognized by a lot of countries).
A Palestinian citizen after the colonialism of Palestine now lives either abroad or in a concentration camp or is dead.
Completely different situations
Settler colonialism a form of imperialism (theft of land, labor and natural resources of a weaker country by a stronger one), where the stronger country sets up a military garrison, and evicts or enslaves the local population. This is border conflict to halt the ever-eastward march of NATO.
The accusations of “russifying the ukrainian language” is pure projection; its the banderites who (with NATO help, Obama bragged about this one) couped Ukraine in 2014 (and who were killing thousands of civilians in the donbass) that have been attempting to make spoken russian illegal in the country. They’ve also been reviving nazi collaborators and building monuments to them as fast as they can.
It was the Bolsheviks (Stalin especially) who strongly supported the creation of a Ukrainian state, as it had a distinct national, lingual, and cultural character, while the western nations were opposed to Ukrainian sovereignty (The fascist dictatorhips of the 30s were essentially at war with all slavic peoples). Modern Russia wants to preserve Ukraine as a buffer state (as it was before 2014). There are many ppl more knowledgeable on lemmygrad and hexbear, that could give you a long background on this conflict.
Modern imperialism (usually) takes a different form from classical colonialism, but even with that definition, Russia can’t be called imperialist as it fits none of the traits.
Previously. Previously. Previously.
Removed by mod
Yep, Russia stole third of Ukraine and tries to pretend it’s a part of their country not because they’re doing colonialism, but because… um… nothing I guess, it’s not happening actually. All the Ukranians just deciding to die of natural causes there.
you genuinely don’t know what colonialism is
Hey, let’s compare definitions.
In my books, it’s when a big country tries to take some land, usually rich in resources, murder those parts of local population who disagrees with that, and make the rest into a workforce, taking all the resources into metropolis.
Now, given that, what parts of Russian relationships with Crimea, Donbass, and Lugansk regions don’t fit this definition? Well, apart from the fact that Russian military force is a military farce and they fail at all their plans except one when they murder local population.
Or do you think attempted colonialism doesn’t count? Because it’s not for the lack of trying, you know
Colonialism is when a country I don’t like does a thing I don’t like somewhere else. Imperialism is when any country attacks any other.
There, who needs books when it’s that simple, tankies?
It’s only Colonialism if it’s from Colonial region of the world, otherwise it’s sparkling war with the exploitative and/or genocidal purposes, and then it’s OK if it’s the country that I like. You wouldn’t understand, lib.
It’s real cute how you can just infer the genocidal and exploitative purposes when it’s an enemy of the US, but you’re a Russian disinfo bot in the pocket of China when you point out at the many examples of US proxies going “We think they’re lower than animals and we’re literally gonna exterminate them and their children”
Colonialism is when two countries have a war
I love how all the chuds from nazi adjacent instances come out of the woodwork to downvote anybody pointing out the basic facts of the situation.