An interesting take on the current events in Bangladesh that i think is worth considering but i’m not sure that i agree with this perspective. Honestly i just don’t know enough yet about the situation and i will reserve judgement until i do.
An interesting take on the current events in Bangladesh that i think is worth considering but i’m not sure that i agree with this perspective. Honestly i just don’t know enough yet about the situation and i will reserve judgement until i do.
Is it sus? All you have to complain about him is regarding a soft treatment of Myanmar’s military (a soft bias, perhaps- but is the article in itself inaccurate or particularly misleading?)
The Russian side in this war, is in every way the honest and justified side in this war. It would be another thing entirely if they had a NATO or Ukraine flag on their profile; in a similar fashion to how it would be if someone had an Isntreal flag (whereas having a Palestine flag simply means one is at least in some extent of a decent human being who stands against genocide)
It is sus. Not hard right reactionary, not listening to him because he’s a chud, but sus. AFAIK the former president of Bangladesh wasn’t a leftist, and there were genuine gripes.
I just looked up a situation a know a bit more about (Myanmar), and found him defending the military junta doing genocide against quite a few minority groups there.
I take Russia’s side in the war. But they’re still a capitalist mini imperialist state.
Pointing out color revolutions and western sponsored regime change against a government doesn’t necessarily imply that you support that government.
And while i do think this is all getting a little off-topic, it is important to note that the ethnic policies of the Myanmar military government are essentially a continuation of what was already happening under the previous “liberal” government of the US puppet Aung San Suu Kyi.
The military are hardly better/worse than the liberal government of Aung San Suu Kyi, sure. That said, going to war against your minority people is never cool.
They are preferable insofar as they preserve Myanmar’s sovereignty and expel foreign interference. The leaders of the previous government were literally trained and funded by western NGOs and CIA cutout NED. Of course that doesn’t mean their treatment of minorities is ok.
But at the same time we know that the imperialists love exploiting any and all ethnic divisions to create armed conflict, destabilization and separatism to either install their own puppet regime, or failing that to turn the country into a failed state and have a destabilized conflict zone on the border of one of their main rivals (in this case China) like they did in Afghanistan.
I think we all forget the Rohingya genocide because AFAIK the West isn’t currently responsible. The country is in a civil war right now. Even ethnic Burmese are fleeing the country as they don’t want to be conscripted. I don’t you why you’re arguing with me about the previous government as I never defended them.
I think we all ignore Myanmar because it has little to do with the West. That’s absolutely fine. But I stand by my claim that it’s sus to defend the Myanmar military who are doing a genocide(s).
The West is responsible for what has been happening to the Rohingya, more specifically the British whose divide and rule ethnic policies purposely and strategically inflamed ethnic tensions while they were the dominant colonial power, and when they were forced to leave they knowingly left behind political and border situations that were akin to time bombs that were guaranteed to erupt into ethnic conflicts all over the world, from Africa to South East Asia.
I’m not excusing the perpetrators, but i think we should be aware of the larger historical context. Such things don’t happen in a vacuum and there are larger forces at work that benefit from continuing to fuel such conflicts and destabilization, especially in such a geopolitically important region.
I’m trying to explain why most people on this site don’t follow the Rohingya situation, not debate it’s causes. Christ this is so damn tedious.
Personally flipflopped between downvoting you or not (currently have not, if I did it would be -3 atm). The reason being, I wholly disagree with your characterization of Russia as a “mini imperialist” state. Are they capitalist? Yes, undeniably and tragically so. Are they reactionary? Domestically at least, yes, though it must be said that the western-backed alternatives (like Navalny) are infinitely more so. But when you look at it- they retain the inclusive, federation (civilization) state model that the Soviets established, their minorities have meaningful and substantial semi-autonomy as well as a say and stake in the collective state, and their policies as such- domestically as well as (especially) in foreign affairs- I do not think can be called “imperialist.”
I’m not getting in this debate. I already said that I take Russia’s side in the conflict. To look at all of Russia’s military adventures since 1991, the hard line they’re taking against actual communist peace activists, all of the monopoly capitalism that’s taking place, and whinge when a fellow Marxist makes a nuanced “mini imperialist” comment. If people want to look at this, ignore all my posting history, and assume that I’m anti Russia and pro US, then I’m not wasting time on you.
Literally all of Russia’s “adventures” since 1991 were reactions for the NATO agressions, coups, encroachments, terror funding.
I’m sorry that some of the comrades here over-reacted a bit to your comment. It is completely legitimate to point out the biases of an author. I don’t completely agree with you, but you raise some valid points.
But also i think it is important when we read a piece like this to also judge it own its own merits. The author may have views we disagree with but those views may not necessarily factor very much into their analysis of a geopolitical event.