• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Russia's Gazprom Oil Wars. Why does the left let them trade blood for oil?

Why does the left not object to Russia trading blood for oil

  • They don't know about it, or purposefully avoid the topic

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Russia doesn't fit their preferred good guy/bad guy world view

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • They don't really care about the people killed from it

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Russia does not trade blood for oil, or Russia can do no harm

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • In Soviet Russia, blood trades oil for you!

    Votes: 7 36.8%

  • Total voters
    19
Actually, I thought you came pretty close to doing so in the passage below, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.



Certainly, if you look at the countries that have seen the most growth (and also the largest reductions in poverty) thanks to globalization or international free trade, you'll see dramatic increases in emissions. Some places are still worse than others; in India, even emissions-per-GDP has grown, in Brazil it's been relatively flat (and actually fairly low -- only marginally higher than Belgium) for about 50 years.

Semantic quibbling, but... I'll go ahead and say it anyway.

It's a big difference between saying "Communist countries gave a **** about the environment" and "capitalist countries are most responsible for the amount of carbon in the atmosphere".
 
The "left" is meant to be defined as the Left political spectrum in any normal political conversation.

Despite your stance on Putin, I am sure that you find that the overall response from the left to Putin's wars for oil based profit is far more muted than was the response during the 2nd Gulf war. Which is the primary purpose of discussion of the thread.

There's any number of reasons for that. Some that spring to mind:

1. The two situations are nowhere near analogous. Putin seized a relatively small piece territory on Russia's border that has historically been Russian anyway. The US/UK went half way around the world and completely smashed another nation-state to bits, destabilised the Middle East, cost anything up to 600,000 lives etc etc etc

2. People quite rightly hold themselves and their society to a higher standard than they do others. Demonstrating and otherwise participating in the democratic processes of one's own country actually has the potential to effect change. Demonstrating and denouncing the actions of another society is the equivalent of shouting at clouds. Putin doesn't give a **** what his own people think, why would he pay the slightest attention to what foreigners on the street are saying or doing? It is much more effective to have intergovernmental pressure brought to bear.

3. People kind of expect totalitarian dictators to act like asshats and they kind of expect that when their own preach values of liberty etc that they actually live up to those values. Hence, it is more shocking when liberal-democracies go half way across the world to smash the **** out another sovereign state to bits for no good reason at all.

Etc. etc. etc.

None of which was included in your loaded troll-poll - hence why I didn't even bother responding.
 
Last edited:
1. The two situations are nowhere near analogous. Putin seized a relatively small piece territory on Russia's border that has historically been Russian anyway. The US/UK went half way around the world and completely smashed another nation-state to bits, destabilised the Middle East, cost anything up to 600,000 lives etc etc etc

Unlike the US and the UK, Russia annexed the territory, despite having a treaty where they recognize Ukrainian borders in exchange of the Ukraine giving up its share of ex-USSR nukes. And what sort of an excuse is the "historically Russian" thing? Could the UK have used "historically British" as an excuse to invade Iraq? Should Putin be able to annex the Baltic states at will, because they're "historically Russian"? What about Finland, are we "historically Swedish" or "historically Russian", or are we a freebie for either country?
 
Unlike the US and the UK, Russia annexed the territory, despite having a treaty where they recognize Ukrainian borders in exchange of the Ukraine giving up its share of ex-USSR nukes. And what sort of an excuse is the "historically Russian" thing? Could the UK have used "historically British" as an excuse to invade Iraq? Should Putin be able to annex the Baltic states at will, because they're "historically Russian"? What about Finland, are we "historically Swedish" or "historically Russian", or are we a freebie for either country?

I suggest that bit pattern tell the Irish in the Republic of Ireland they are "Historically British" and see what happens.

Pathetic attempt at "Moral Equivlency" yet again.
 
Unlike the US and the UK, Russia annexed the territory, despite having a treaty where they recognize Ukrainian borders in exchange of the Ukraine giving up its share of ex-USSR nukes. And what sort of an excuse is the "historically Russian" thing? Could the UK have used "historically British" as an excuse to invade Iraq? Should Putin be able to annex the Baltic states at will, because they're "historically Russian"? What about Finland, are we "historically Swedish" or "historically Russian", or are we a freebie for either country?

Look, they're fair points, but just pointing out the fact isn't an "excuse" for anything - it's simply pointing out the facts.

Pathetic attempt at "Moral Equivlency" yet again.

I don't think there is an equivalency - the post I was responding to asked why "teh Left" aren't protesting as strongly against Russia as it did with the American invasion of Iraq. What America did was much,, much worse. The two situations are very, very different. That doesn't justify Russia imperialism, it puts into into context, something that Western exceptionalists just can't process - which brings be back to my original comment in this thread about nuance, any attempt at it immediately engenders this kind of shrill accusations.
 
LOL, if anything it has been those on the right that have favorable view of Putin.
 
There's any number of reasons for that. Some that spring to mind:

1. The two situations are nowhere near analogous. Putin seized a relatively small piece territory on Russia's border that has historically been Russian anyway. The US/UK went half way around the world and completely smashed another nation-state to bits, destabilised the Middle East, cost anything up to 600,000 lives etc etc etc

2. People quite rightly hold themselves and their society to a higher standard than they do others. Demonstrating and otherwise participating in the democratic processes of one's own country actually has the potential to effect change. Demonstrating and denouncing the actions of another society is the equivalent of shouting at clouds. Putin doesn't give a **** what his own people think, why would he pay the slightest attention to what foreigners on the street are saying or doing? It is much more effective to have intergovernmental pressure brought to bear.

3. People kind of expect totalitarian dictators to act like asshats and they kind of expect that when their own preach values of liberty etc that they actually live up to those values. Hence, it is more shocking when liberal-democracies go half way across the world to smash the **** out another sovereign state to bits for no good reason at all.

That would still fall under the "Russia doesn't fit their preferred good guy/badguy worldview. The excuses you gave were just justification for taking that action.

If anything your post is basically admitting that it is correct that they are giving Russia's wars for oil a free pass because it doesn't suit them to do otherwise.
 
LOL, if anything it has been those on the right that have favorable view of Putin.

How so/in what way?

While Putin trends more on the fascist side of politics, from my personal experience it is the more Socialist/Communist/far left political groups that have given him a free pass, while the more Right wing groups are often far too aggressive in wanting to confront him.
 
PS - what do you think the difference between "socialism" and "communism" is?
"Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.
"

Man, those are completely different! Social ownership vs. common ownership, totally different! :rolleyes:

All right, I will bite, and try to tie it all back in to the point of the thread.

Genuine Communism and Capitalism only exists on paper. They are both impossible to implement in the real world without an essential Socialism structure to base their systems on.

For Communism, the common ownership, State control, and semi functionality in the deeply flawed Communist structure requires a Socialist system. For Capitalism, All of the roads, police, military, schools, and other essential components needed for trade to occur are Socialist structures. You could never have a Capitalist, Communist, or any other economic system that would ever function without a Socialist backbone.

We are all just different shades of Socialists.

Too much or too little Socialism has been shown to cause millions of unnecessary deaths. A lot of the problems in the world economies have developed because we have been unable to come to terms with, or even acknowledge this balance.

For Russia, the system is heavily corrupt, totalitarian, and a largely petro economy. Being a largely petro economy, or even totalitation is not the main problem for the Russian economy. The main problem is the corruption. For examlePutin Corruption Network Revealed

Corruption by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration in Moscow has produced tens of billions of dollars worth of illicit funds for the Russian leader and his top aides, according to U.S. officials.

Putin is estimated to have amassed a fortune worth at least an estimated $28 billion through kickbacks from projects like construction at the Sochi Winter Olympic games, holdings in Russian real estate and energy conglomerates, and kickbacks from deals with associates going back to the late 1990s.

A lot of what Putin does is to put cronies in power while stealing money from the Russian people.

The problem to really see what the Russian economy has become is what has led to many of the problems we have today. Russia is a country that need more Capitalism, more Socialism, and less corruption.

Putin's war on the whole world and his own people in order to enrich himself not only puts his Country at risk, but also everyone else in the world because his belligerent military actions do not take into account the consequences.
 
How so/in what way?

While Putin trends more on the fascist side of politics, from my personal experience it is the more Socialist/Communist/far left political groups that have given him a free pass, while the more Right wing groups are often far too aggressive in wanting to confront him.

Fact is, Putin seems to attract support from the extremes of both the left and right.
Pat Buchanan is a big fan of Putin,as is Ron Paul on the right. His most public defender in the US is Stephan Cohen, a left wing academic who is married to the editor of "The Nation" one of the bibles of the American "Hard Left".
Putin seem to attract the more militant "Anti Establishement" types from both the left and right.
 
Last edited:
That would still fall under the "Russia doesn't fit their preferred good guy/badguy worldview.

Or maybe, just maybe, some people take a more nuanced view of the world than a simplistically binary good guy/bad guy dichotomy.
 
Fact is, Putin seems to attract support from the extremes of both the left and right.
Pat Buchanan is a big fan of Putin,as is Ron Paul on the right. His most public defender in the US is Stephan Cohen, a left wing academic who is married to the editor of "The Nation" one of the bibles of the American "Hard Left".
Putin seem to attract the more militant "Anti Establishement" types from both the left and right.

This. I know many conservatives who admire Putin for his manliness, his decisiveness, his aura of toughness. Like so. . They wish America could have a leader like that, at least according to the things they post on FB.

I am pretty liberal myself. I don't like Putin and none of my liberal friends do, either. At least, none of the friends I am in regular contact with.

Is it more of a European Liberal vs. American Liberal thing?
 
This. I know many conservatives who admire Putin for his manliness, his decisiveness, his aura of toughness. Like so. . They wish America could have a leader like that, at least according to the things they post on FB.

I am pretty liberal myself. I don't like Putin and none of my liberal friends do, either. At least, none of the friends I am in regular contact with.

Is it more of a European Liberal vs. American Liberal thing?

I think it more of Liberal Vs Radical sort of thing.
 
LOL, if anything it has been those on the right that have favorable view of Putin.

How so/in what way?

While Putin trends more on the fascist side of politics, from my personal experience it is the more Socialist/Communist/far left political groups that have given him a free pass, while the more Right wing groups are often far too aggressive in wanting to confront him.

I see that dudalb already mentioned Pat Buchanan. Let me see if I can find an example.

http://buchanan.org/blog/putin-one-us-6071

Putin hates gays, has criminalized them, therefore Buchanon likes Putin.
 
Ron Paul "champion of Liberty" has also fell over himself praising Putin.

One of the amusing things about Putin is he has managed to find supporters from wackjobs on both the left and right. Something the Old Soviet Union could never have done in a million years.
 
Last edited:
This. I know many conservatives who admire Putin for his manliness, his decisiveness, his aura of toughness. Like so. . They wish America could have a leader like that, at least according to the things they post on FB.

I am pretty liberal myself. I don't like Putin and none of my liberal friends do, either. At least, none of the friends I am in regular contact with.

Is it more of a European Liberal vs. American Liberal thing?

I see that dudalb already mentioned Pat Buchanan. Let me see if I can find an example.

http://buchanan.org/blog/putin-one-us-6071

Putin hates gays, has criminalized them, therefore Buchanon likes Putin.

I find it amusing that Putin's style is very camp.
 

Back
Top Bottom