The Congo Civil War, or Congo Crisis, was a complex political tumult that began just days following Belgium’s granting of Congolese independence in 1960. Lasting four years, the associated violence claimed an estimated 100,000 lives including the nation’s first Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba, and UN Secretary Dag Hammarskjöld, who was killed in a plane crash as he attempted to mediate the crisis. Escalating with the secession of the southernmost province of Katanga, the conflict concluded five years later with a united Congo emerging under the dictatorship of Joseph-Désiré Mobutu.
On June 30, 1960, Belgium negotiated post-colonial mining rights in declaring an independent Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Yet within days, soldiers of the Congolese army mutinied, demanding increased pay and the removal of white officers from their ranks. When Belgium intervened militarily, more soldiers rebelled. Many of these soldiers gravitated toward the radical nationalist Prime Minister Patrice Emery Lumumba.
Then, dominated by Belgian business interests, the mineral-rich Katanga province under the leadership of Moïse Kapenda Tshombe seceded from the DRC with Belgian support. Congolese President Joseph Kasavubu and Prime Minister Lumumba asked and received a peacekeeping force from the United Nations (UN).
The conflict also became the site of a dangerous Cold War “proxy” contest between western powers led by the United States and the Soviet Union-led Communist bloc. Under pressure from western nations and in exchange for UN support, President Kasavubu purged his government of radical elements including Prime Minister Lumumba. The ultra-nationalist Lumumba, though supported by the Congolese, was viewed by Western business leaders as an obstacle to their continued investments in Congolese diamond mines. Fearing Lumumba was secretly a Communist, the United States was particularly adamant about his removal from power.
Lumumba responded by firing Kasavubu as both leaders claimed control over the country, and Army Chief of Staff Joseph Mobutu in turn orchestrated a military coup d’état which ousted the two leaders. Mobutu’s government was supported by western governments. The Soviet Union and other Communist nations supported Lumumba who ultimately was killed by Katangan rebels.
With his chief rival removed, Mobutu pledged nominal support to President Kasavubu and the two led the successful effort to end the Katanga secession. UN forces eventually recaptured all of Katanga province. In 1964, a new rebellion began in the Eastern Congo when armed fighters (“Simbas”) began to spread across the region. Ironically, Moïse Tshombe, who had led the secessionist Katanga province, was made prime minister with the mandate to defeat these rebels and end other regional revolts. The Simbas were defeated in November 1964.
One year later, Mobutu seized power from President Kasavubu after having persuaded Western leaders that he was the most effective leader in the fight against communism. Kasavubu and Tshombe were exiled as Mobutu set up a one-party dictatorship, controlling the nation until 1997. Nonetheless, for the first time since independence, all of the country was ruled by one government.
Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
- 📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- 🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- ⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
- ✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
I have returned to scream into the void.
Does this site still have putinist, or are we cool?
Just because we say “I understand Putin’s motives and here’s why it’s ultimately NATO’s fault this happened” doesn’t mean every last one of us wouldn’t write that class traitor’s name in a death note given the chance.
It’s both US Nato AND Russia’s fault, you buffoons. They both orchestrated this path for Ukraine.
This is just “Neither Washington nor Moscow/Beijing” again. The West is far more culpable in the destruction of Ukraine than any Russian politician ever since its actions in Former Yugoslavia all the way back in the 90s post soviet era (also brought by the West). It is the West who asks for the war to go on “to the last Ukrainian” while Russia drafts peace proposals that get summarily rejected. It is the West who create a so-called “peace summit” where they didn’t even bother to invite the other side in the conflict so it’s not actually a peace summit but a war summit.
Critical Support for the Russia’s SMO because it’s the only side in this conflict that wants to sue for peace while Ukrainian Nazis kidnap middle aged men and young boys to send them to the meat grinder. In an entirely unsurprising turn of events, Russia (and therefore by extension Putin) ending the war would actually be the more beneficial option to the Ukrainian proletariat than whatever the Kyiv regime is planning with their Washington handlers.
But yeah
on any domestic social issues and their neoliberal hell of a society. (That’s right this site has a <russia-cool> emoji, so I don’t know what you mean by putinists)
In a gross oversimplification, Putin is just a neoliberal ghoul who was pushed left by even more crass and cruel West who didn’t accept him into their clique
what
what are you confused about?
Sorry, don’t mean to come across as hostile, but I don’t get why you’d think there’s unironic Putin supporters in a website that bans transphobes, homophobes, etc. If you meant to ask if there’s people who critically support Russia because they oppose NATO imperialism then yes, it’s still a communist website. Not that it matters too much, I don’t think anyone here can materially affect the situation in any substantial way, but in principle the vast majority of the site prefers multipolarity to Western hegemony, even when Western hegemony uses pinkwashing to pretend it’s morally superior to Russia and China.
Yeah, like a year and a half ago/two years ago there were unironic Putin supporters on the website tho and they were really annoying.
I’ve been in this site since the Chapo days, all I’ve seen is people support the SMO. Never seen someone praise Putin’s political positions as a whole, closest thing is some people in this thread coming close to defending homophobia in Russia, but there’s a pretty big difference between pragmatic and critical support to Russia for geopolitical reasons (which are pretty reasonable from an anti-imperialist perspective) and support of the reactionary policies Putin also has enacted.
I mean this is kind of what I am talking about tbh. Multipolarity is better for the world in it’s opposition and weakening of the US and it’s global order, but that doesn’t mean you have to support every foreign policy move by said multipolar power. Putin invading Ukraine was undeniably a stupid move, even just for statecraft reasons, you don’t gotta support that shit lol you just look silly.
I don’t entirely disgree with you because the invasion obviously didn’t go the way Putin wanted, but it’s also a question of what Russia was supposed to do about every treaty and every agreement to limit NATO’s expansion being ignored. Ukraine had been couped and had a puppet government in place, and was massacring ethnic Russians near the Russian border. Should Russia have held on for longer to find a better moment to attack, get allies on board, whatever? Maybe, but I don’t think anyone knows more than Russian intelligence what factors went into launching the SMO in the moment they did. They got NATO to more or less permanently close the doors to Ukraine, and destroyed confidence in Western military might. They also lost their gas line, made Europe side with America much more than before, lost thousands of people, and attracted a domestic anti-war movement that hates Putin. Is that such a dumb decision? What would the situation be for Russia if they hadn’t invaded? It’s a question that I don’t think you could confidently give a positive answer to, it wasn’t an undeniably stupid move to take a shot when faced with the situation as it was in 2022.
I also wouldn’t go as far as to say it was a fluke that Ukraine survived the initial stage of the operation, but it wasn’t guaranteed either; there definitely was a world where this whole thing would’ve been wrapped up in 2022. And even as things shook out, judging by the mass of artillery each side has fired Russia is still coming out miles ahead. I’d call it a stupid decision if NATO had actually “weakened Russia” like they wanted, but Russia being able to produce far more ammunition than all of NATO combined means that it’s been the opposite, NATO has been the one getting relatively weaker as the ammunition and material reserves dry up. All that’s left is overengineered military hardware, openly corrupt MIC contracts for the Space Force or whatever, and aircraft carriers that would turn into billion dollar Titanic replicas around hypersonic missiles. So, in any case, maybe the stupid move was when NATO poked the bear?
I think massively escalating the conflict in Ukraine was bad actually and has done very little to advance the cause or ability of revolution globally and has only resulted in the immiseration of the Ukranian working class.
What was he supposed to do just keep letting nato lie to him and put nukes 5 minutes from Moscow? Let the fascists pogrom the people of Donbas? Let the wave of refugees fleeing genocide wash over the border and then let the banderites build up their military right on the border while nato sends them more weapons and trainers for another decade?
lol, lmao