And the sad part is they have already kind of half succeeded in reversing the outcome of the last world war
They did it in 1991. It’s not about whether Europe is dominated by Germany or not. It is about capitalism controlling Europe (and Euro bourgeoisie having access to resources they need to make the line go up).
And their plans to “decolonize” aka balkanize Russia are also eerily similar to the plans that Nazi Germany had
Look at the numbers of people who died in the 90’s. Yeah.
You can’t blame the Russians for thinking that for some weird reason Europe decides to unite against them and try to destroy them every century or so
This, however, sounds oddly like a Russian nationalist talking point. The conflicts are not borne out of some mythical “clash of civilizations”. It’s economy. Russian territory is in the sights of colonization, because that is what feeds the capitalist system. Same reason Americas were colonized, same reason India got colonized. In fact, same reason Russia colonized territory east of Ural!
should never get into a land war with Russia because it will not end well for you…well…not unless you are the Mongols
I understand that this is meant to be a joke, but can we please do away with that fuckin narrative? There wasn’t even a Russia when the Mongols arrived, it was a bunch of feuding duchies, that were more than eager to throw each other into the grinder and ally with the invaders if that meant getting ahead. Coz you know, that’s how feudalism works. Meanwhile, Mongols were a veritable empire. You don’t mock the Germans for getting steamrolled by the Rome, now do you?
I seem to remember a lecture by Michael Parenti where he pointed out that, towards the end of the Empire, a lot of the Germanic tribes had evolved a higher stage of production (feudalism) than the Romans. In other words, the “barbarians” who conquered Rome were in some ways more advanced than the Romans with their outdated and inefficient slave state.
The “Barbarians” were often defined by simply being “not Roman,” similar to how the modern west describes other nations as “uncivilised” simply because they aren’t western enough.
What I meant was not that i subscribe to that Russian nationalist talking point, of course i understand that there are real material causes for such conflicts, i simply meant that I can understand why some Russians would think that way.
And yes the Mongols comment was meant as a joke, i’m sorry if it came across as offensive. I would however argue that Russia did indeed exist at that time already, it had already existed as an ethno-cultural-religious if not always politically united entity since the time of the Rurikids and the Kievan Rus.
Just because it was disunited and fractured does not mean it was not still Russia. Russia was also disunited when the Polish invaded during the Time of Troubles. China was also at various times in its history fractured, disunited and infighting, but it was still China.
Anyway this is a mostly pedantic/academic disagreement and i don’t want to get too far off topic.
They did it in 1991. It’s not about whether Europe is dominated by Germany or not. It is about capitalism controlling Europe (and Euro bourgeoisie having access to resources they need to make the line go up).
Look at the numbers of people who died in the 90’s. Yeah.
This, however, sounds oddly like a Russian nationalist talking point. The conflicts are not borne out of some mythical “clash of civilizations”. It’s economy. Russian territory is in the sights of colonization, because that is what feeds the capitalist system. Same reason Americas were colonized, same reason India got colonized. In fact, same reason Russia colonized territory east of Ural!
I understand that this is meant to be a joke, but can we please do away with that fuckin narrative? There wasn’t even a Russia when the Mongols arrived, it was a bunch of feuding duchies, that were more than eager to throw each other into the grinder and ally with the invaders if that meant getting ahead. Coz you know, that’s how feudalism works. Meanwhile, Mongols were a veritable empire. You don’t mock the Germans for getting steamrolled by the Rome, now do you?
Sorry to nitpick, but you probably meant the Gauls/France getting steamrolled by Rome. They could never manage to conquer the Germans.
I seem to remember a lecture by Michael Parenti where he pointed out that, towards the end of the Empire, a lot of the Germanic tribes had evolved a higher stage of production (feudalism) than the Romans. In other words, the “barbarians” who conquered Rome were in some ways more advanced than the Romans with their outdated and inefficient slave state.
The “Barbarians” were often defined by simply being “not Roman,” similar to how the modern west describes other nations as “uncivilised” simply because they aren’t western enough.
What I meant was not that i subscribe to that Russian nationalist talking point, of course i understand that there are real material causes for such conflicts, i simply meant that I can understand why some Russians would think that way.
And yes the Mongols comment was meant as a joke, i’m sorry if it came across as offensive. I would however argue that Russia did indeed exist at that time already, it had already existed as an ethno-cultural-religious if not always politically united entity since the time of the Rurikids and the Kievan Rus.
Just because it was disunited and fractured does not mean it was not still Russia. Russia was also disunited when the Polish invaded during the Time of Troubles. China was also at various times in its history fractured, disunited and infighting, but it was still China.
Anyway this is a mostly pedantic/academic disagreement and i don’t want to get too far off topic.