World News

3215 readers

112 users here now

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml

sovietsnake@lemmygrad.ml

ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml

ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml

Russia to demand legal codification of NATO’s non-expansion eastward (tass.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/worldnews@lemmygrad.ml

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It is said that the contradictions between capitalism and socialism are stronger than the contradictions among the capitalist countries. Theoretically, of course, that is true. It is not only true now, today; it was true before the Second World War. And it was more or less realized by the leaders of the capitalist countries. Yet the Second World War began not as a war with the U.S.S.R., but as a war between capitalist countries. Why? Firstly, because war with the U.S.S.R., as a socialist land, is more dangerous to capitalism than war between capitalist countries; for whereas war between capitalist countries puts in question only the supremacy of certain capitalist countries over others, war with the U.S.S.R. must certainly put in question the existence of capitalism itself. Secondly, because the capitalists, although they clamour, for "propaganda" purposes, about the aggressiveness of the Soviet Union, do not themselves believe that it is aggressive, because they are aware of the Soviet Union's peaceful policy and know that it will not itself attack capitalist countries.

[...] Consequently, the struggle of the capitalist countries for markets and their desire to crush their competitors proved in practice to be stronger than the contradictions between the capitalist camp and the socialist camp.

Joseph Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR, Chapter 6 Inevitability of Wars Between Capitalist Countries

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, but that doesn't contradict what I said. Stalin is talking about a situation where there are underlying reasons for conflict between capitalist countries. I'm saying such reasons simply do not exist between Russia and the US. Russia is a regional power, and it doesn't directly encroach on US interests.

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The reason is the same as always, extraction of natural resources and cheap labour from Russia.

Europe will never side with Russia in this conflict, but should the US attack China, Europe might side with China in hopes of regaining independence from the US.

[...] when Hitler Germany declared war on the Soviet Union, the Anglo-French-American bloc, far from joining with Hitler Germany, was compelled to enter into a coalition with the U.S.S.R. against Hitler Germany.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

The US will be doing that in their own hemisphere, because the geography makes it pretty much impossible for the US to contest Russia. That much should be obvious. In fact, the policy papers that were published last year and this year spell this out in black and white:

Europe in its current state is subservient to the US, but if you look at the politics in Europe, it's pretty clear that liberal regimes aren't going to last long. Once it becomes clear the war is lost, there's going to be a huge political upheaval. My expectation is that the most likely scenario is that nationalist parties get into power in France and Germany, and that's going to be the end of the EU. It's entirely possible that countries like Hungary and Slovakia actually join BRICS as well.

Europe trying to normalize relations with China is a possibility, but so far there's little sign that there is any serious effort in that direction.