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

  • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.”

    • ratboy [they/them]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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