DSA on the war in Ukraine sucks ass, regrettably

Submitted by Moonside in vote_satan

I won't treat the arguments they use in their Twitter thread, though I do find faults in them, but rather wish to focus on the difference in moral clarity between them and Russian anarchists on the war, who I think the DSAIC could do much to learn from. The regrettable parts are a mixture of unserious analysis vaguely alluded to and a complete lack of focus. The seeming conclusion is that what really ought to be condemned is the hypocrisy of the US and its NATO allies and that in the name of de-escalation people in Ukraine ought to remain unarmed and unable to resist an irredentist invading force fueled by 19th century dreams of Greater Russia. Also, the person we really ought to listen to is Noam Chomsky and the publication to read to stay informed on the war in Ukraine is The Jacobin.

The thread is a mélange of complaints, ranging from some valid ones (like the early clueless suggestions to enforce a no fly zone, which carries along it a legitimate risk of a nuclear war) to massive overemphasis on the role of the USA and NATO (without mentioning the background that Crimean annexation and the war in Donbas were motivated by Ukraine's EU association, not Nato links) and petty seeming ones (given the gravity of the situation), like complaining about the media responses to a previous DSA statement. Even if you agreed with all of its points, wouldn't you agree that there's not much of a focus in the messaging? I can't grasp for whom it is meant and whose interests it's trying to further. It links to over 10 different articles written by different people, instead of making or expanding their own points.

The whole mess is a failure politically, morally and rhetorically. Just embarrassing. Posted in /f/votesatan because DSA has voting in it.

8

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

devtesla wrote

The statement is fine? There's people actively advocating for a no fly zone, not sure why you're acting like it's a distant possibility. There's nothing in that thread that disagrees with that anarchist statement. Not really sure what you're going so hard in here for

5

Moonside OP wrote

There's people actively advocating for a no fly zone, not sure why you're acting like it's a distant possibility.

Biden and NATO are opposed to it because it goes against their own interests, mostly. The popular opinion likely won't matter, as it often doesn't in politics and some of the proposals have been fantastical, such as a 'non-kinetic no-fly zone' being operated from space.

A no-fly zone goes against long standing thinking in nuclear deterrence, which is the basis on which NATO was originally found upon. NATO didn't think that they could win a conventional war against Soviet Union (and the position of West Germany strategically fragile in such a conflict), which lead to a lot of theorizing on the use of nuclear deterrence instead. To enforce a no-fly zone, NATO needs to destroy antiair weaponry in Belarus and Russia (to keep its own air superiority in tact), but from a Russian point of view, it's impossible to distinguish between conventional and nuclear payloads and both them and the US has not disavowed the option to use first nuclear strikes, for strategic nuclear deterrence reasons. To this day, Russia still has a fail-deadly system known as Perimeter in place. The potential price of escalation is thus high.

I have seen exactly one person argue that the risk of nuclear war is no barrier for establishing a no-fly zone, but I can't imagine Biden or NATO leadership willingly sacrificing themselves to the Ukrainian cause.

There's nothing in that thread that disagrees with that anarchist statement.

I praised them for their moral clarity. That is, I found the DSA IC to be muddled in comparison and too close to sitting by sidelines. Appeals to hypocrisy just can't hold candle to the light of principles.

Not really sure what you're going so hard in here for

I was mostly just ranting myself, thus I kept myself from positive proposals and I didn't want to spent effort into debunking either. If I was writing a serious piece, I'd discard the OP as my first draft and write a couple more before starting to polish it up.

2

devtesla wrote

Appeals to hypocrisy just can't hold candle to the light of principles.

This is making my eyes roll out of my head, I'm sorry Lol. Sorry their statement isn't exactly how you'd say it?

Anyway we've been so close to nuclear war so many times, and saved by a fluke, that I can't share you confidence that someone won't do something moronic and get everyone killed. I understand that NATO protocol is to avoid and escalation like a no fly zone but stupider shit has happened.

3

bunnies wrote

Agreed, it's bad. Take for instance the point about non-NATO European countries being pressured into joining. Like, we're not being pressured by the evil ghost of American imperialism, we're just finding out that apparently no one will help you when you get invaded if you're not part of NATO, because that will start WW3. And when it happens, socialists will write articles about how great solidarity is (in the abstract, of course), while actively advocating against sending you guns to defend yourself.

4

devtesla wrote

In the specific case of Ukraine, what I'm seeing isn't necessarily that the entire country "needs guns to to defend themselves" and more that Zelenskyy wants more guns to send loads of untrained conscripts into a meat grinder. There's a difference between the government of Ukraine and the working class of the Ukraine, of which the men of the country aren't allowed to leave.

I don't have a solution to this problem but I don't think "let's not funnel weapons into this conflict" is an indefensible position, particularly when you look at everything the US has gotten involved with that go so much worse.

One last thing: NATO membership is something used by western countries to influence domestic policy in countries like Ukraine. Since Zelenskyy came to power, there's been a transformation of Ukraine to low cost labor source for the rest of Europe, causing GDP to crater and lots of people to already leave the country before the war started. This is how NATO has been since its founding. Being anti-NATO is supporting the working class.

I hope this somewhat makes the DSA position more clear? I know that this doesn't truly tackle anything that's horrifying about Russia and is a little bit US main character shit, but it's an American org so it's mostly gonna talk about America.

6

Moonside OP wrote

I fail to see how the it benefits the working class conscripts to have no weapons to defend themselves with.

One last thing: NATO membership is something used by western countries to influence domestic policy in countries like Ukraine. Since Zelenskyy came to power, there's been a transformation of Ukraine to low cost labor source for the rest of Europe, causing GDP to crater and lots of people to already leave the country before the war started. This is how NATO has been since its founding. Being anti-NATO is supporting the working class.

The background issue to Crimean annexation and the war in Donbass was the trade agreement with the European Union, not NATO membership, which became impossible as the war was an on-going territorial dispute.

Though Ukrainian corruption ought not to underestimated, the decline in GDP since the beginning of Zelenskyi's term in 2019 is mostly attributable to the on-going COVID19 pandemic.

4

bunnies wrote

I very much sympathize and agree with your point about how the USA, given its history in global conflicts, should tread very carefully in this situation. On the other hand, I kinda feel like "really? of all the conflicts you've been involved in since WWII, this is when you've suddenly decided to grow a conscience???" (and when I say 'you' here, I mean a very vague gestures in the general direction of the USA, I know that american socialists have been opposed to all these illegitimate wars.)

But I don't really buy the overall narrative here. Looking at a source of the GDP of Ukraine that I found, the only dips are after the financial crisis, and after being invaded by Russia the first time. When did this supposed economic downturn due to NATO influence start? And if Ukraine has been selling out their economy for the hope of a NATO membership, why is no one coming to its aid? Seems like a bad precedence to set if the USA is indeed pressuring countries to join.

It seems to me like american socialists are so entrenched in the idea that american imperialism is to blame in global conflicts that it has become a self-evident truth, no further analysis needed. And any war that Russia starts is obviously a proxy war against the USA. I don't think this is the case anymore, and I think that the failure to recognize this, and incorporate it in their analysis, is what makes the DSA's response so lacklustre. (On the other hand, I don't know anything and no one should listen to me.)

3

Moonside OP wrote

I find the focus on NATO bizarre for two fold reasons.

First, it ignores the immediate backdrop to war in Donbass and the annexation of Crimea, namely Ukraine seeking closer connection with the EU, which didn't suit Putin, but which also distinctively isn't NATO. In fact in 2013 Russia warned that the treaty recognizing Ukrainian border would be invalidated by the signing of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement.

Secondly, before Russian aggression against Ukraine, European NATO allies had been making their armed forces smaller rather than larger and the US has focused on other areas in favor of Eastern Europe. It is difficult to read these as provocations. The increases in military build up have happened after Russian aggression.

I do think that Bush administration had a negative impact that has been reflected in Russia, but the Trump administration sought to warm the relationship, to no avail.

3

neku wrote (edited )

Nowadays if you're on the left and you don't condemn the war with the most hysterics and bluster and calls for immediate intervention of a Rachel Maddow or a CNN you're assumed to be a closet Putin apologist or - gasp - a tankie, which is the worst thing anyone could ever be. There's value in being level-headed, and let's be real: the statements of the DSA international committee do not affect anything anywhere at all. Why even bother getting pressed about it

Fundamentally, this thread they've published isn't even about the war! It's about how the war has been exploited by moneyed interests! They made a separate statement over here which parallels with that Russian anarchist statement just fine. Apples and oranges

Also, the person we really ought to listen to is Noam Chomsky and the publication to read to stay informed on the war in Ukraine is The Jacobin.

What are you talking about???

4

Moonside OP wrote

There's value in being level-headed, and let's be real: the statements of the DSA international committee do not affect anything anywhere at all. Why even bother getting pressed about it

But I enjoy dunking on them. There's a distinct pleasure in it. If I were positioned better, perhaps I could have slight impact on discrediting them enough for them to be replaced, but alas, I don't hold myself to have such powers.

Fundamentally, this thread they've published isn't even about the war! It's about how the war has been exploited by moneyed interests!

I certainly didn't get the impression myself. Rather mine was that the explicit purpose of the thread was to oppose war hawks, but even then I find it untenable to conflate them with moneyed interests.That is, I ain't no vulgar Marxist on the war in Ukraine.

On the analytical side of foreign policy, I find it most regrettable that Iraq war has so much shaped leftist anti-imperialism, especially so given how enthusiastically the false explanation through greed of oil is still being endorsed as an explanation for that war. Wars are no mere repetitions, but have their own complex sets of causes.

What are you talking about???

I just find it cringe to so strongly appeal to saint Noam and The Jacobin. It reeks of parochialism concerning a conflict in Eastern Europe, which is a bad look for an International Committee, like they were just indulging in some light reading from vaguely lefty spaces and making things up as they go.

2

devtesla wrote

There's a distinct pleasure in it.

Glad you're enjoying yourself Lol

1

twovests wrote

Also, the person we really ought to listen to is Noam Chomsky and the publication to read to stay informed on the war in Ukraine is The Jacobin.

What are you talking about???

I'm mainly lurking here but FWIW I read this as part of "The seeming conclusion", i.e. a take being criticized. I.e.

The seeming conclusion is [some stuff]. Also, the person we really ought to listen to is Noam Chomsky and the publication to read to stay informed on the war in Ukraine is The Jacobin.

1

neku wrote

sure, but that's still totally unsupported by the actual contents of the thread??? its easy to say that DSA nerds love chomsky and jacobin, but the IC thread didnt have anything to do with them. just seemed like a totally unrelated barb thrown in for no reason

3

devtesla wrote

it's online posting snark, Lol. I think it's a weird thing to be snarky about but whatever just post

3

twovests wrote

Ah I misunderstood you. I thought you interpreted that as an unrelated and sincere suggestion from Moonside that we only listen to Chomsky and Jacobin

2

neku wrote

oh yeah no i knew that was sarcastic. but there just wasnt anything in the dsa thread about jacobin or chomsky so i was like ??? where did this come from

1

Moonside OP wrote

I'm just finding the appeal to Jacobin and Noam Chomsky to be signs of parochial and a sign of inflexibility, inability to develop self-standing expertise and research outside of one's own echo chamber, but it is also snark just as /u/devtesla said.

2

Moonside OP wrote

Addendum: a good Twitter thread on the deficiencies of arguments from hypocrisy, which largely apply to DSAIC here as well.

3

flabberghaster wrote

I think the statement is fine.

I seriously feel like we are back in 2002 and if you're not baying for an invasion of Iraq, you were being told "Say hello to Saddam Hussein for me!"

I think flooding the country with guns and turn the place into another proxy war, calls from all quarters of the "Serious People" to establish a no fly zone, etc need to be spoken out against.

It's absolutely TRUE that NATO has no leg to stand on calling out Russian aggression with our record. We do need to condemn NATO for the role it did play in leading up to this.

None of this is to say "No one should care about the plight of the Ukrainian people." It's to say "Hold your got dang horses, let's not dive headlong into another damn war."

2

Moonside OP wrote

I seriously feel like we are back in 2002 and if you're not baying for an invasion of Iraq, you were being told "Say hello to Saddam Hussein for me!"

Well the point is to be in 2022 and not live in the past.

I think flooding the country with guns and turn the place into another proxy war, calls from all quarters of the "Serious People" to establish a no fly zone, etc need to be spoken out against.

It's certainly no proxy war as Russia is directly involved in it and for the most part it's in fact not the Serious People who are calling for a no-fly zone. Scholars in international relationships generally oppose, as do most media outlets and NATO. Zelensky might want one, but he's not getting it and the way I read his message to Congress is that he knows this, which is why he laid out alternatives. Biden didn't support Zelensky's wishes either.

It's absolutely TRUE that NATO has no leg to stand on calling out Russian aggression with our record. We do need to condemn NATO for the role it did play in leading up to this.

How did NATO lead into the war?

None of this is to say "No one should care about the plight of the Ukrainian people." It's to say "Hold your got dang horses, let's not dive headlong into another damn war."

But the DSA IC is also opposed to sanctions, which are not warfare. What sort of means of opposing powerful states trying to annex weaker ones are you for?

1

flabberghaster wrote

Well the point is to be in 2022 and not live in the past.

I'm pointing out parallels between this and a previous disastrous context and the political clikqte that lead up to it and you're just brushing it off as obsolete, like as a culture we're past that? If this is where we're at propaganda wise I think we seriously are screwed, not even saying "beware, we have seen these talking points before used against people opposed to escalating a war" is considered in bounds?

How did NATO lead into the war?

In the wiki leaks diplomatic cables, officials were warning that continuing expanding NATO past the point agreed upon in the 90s would be seen as provocation by Russia, but they've been expanding anyway despite the potential to heighten tensions.

Since when is it "the left" standpoint to just assume NATO is completely innocent and Russia are just insane batman villains acting out of a pure drive for chaos with no geostrategic goals of their own?

Obviously the invasion is bad but why should we risk a nuclear war escalating the conflict more directly?

But the DSA IC is also opposed to sanctions, which are not warfare.

Obviously they are, they're economic warfare. The goal is to inflict pain on the populace in hopes of causing a domestic crisis in the country.

2

devtesla wrote (edited )

Couple things you seem to not understand:

  • Why is someone who opposes war now, when it's difficult, any different from those who opposed war in 2002? It's not like US foreign policy is any different now than it was back then. Equally evil! Come the fuck on.
  • Part of the agreement to reunify Germany was a promise to not move NATO east, this clearly wasn't kept. This is an act of aggression and NATO knows this. Putin is crazy for ignoring the billion reasons to not get into this quagmire but isn't not like there's been no poking the bear.
  • Cutting off a modern state from global markets through sanctions is essentially an act of war, and results in countless preventable deaths. They're also ineffective, the US has had sanction regimes against multiple states for decades without resulting in regime changes.

Here's the core of what I think your problem is:

What sort of means of opposing powerful states trying to annex weaker ones are you for?

And I don't have a good answer because the foreign policy apparatus is so monumentally evil that we can't trust it to suddenly have the right motives. What can we do? Well if you look outside this single thread at what the DSAIC does, which is protest, fund labor unions helping people in Ukraine, and support politicians that aren't fucking crazy.

That's all. If you want to be mad at the DSA it's not really skin off my back but I don't see the usefulness here

1