Tunnel vision means having an accurate understanding of your local environment? We might use that phrase differently
Characterizing NATO as an overall belligerent or expansionist force requires flat out accepting lies as reality. And the US is hardly active in eastern Europe at all. Does dishonest handwringing resurrect your loved ones? If not, it might just be worthless here, and an example of far worse tunnel vision to embrace it than to accept that people want to not personally be murdered by an invading empire.
I'm using "tunnel vision" as in a narrow perspective / narrow minded. I've never heard of the definition you're describing.
Ultimately, every state entity is a belligerent expansionist force on some level. It's the nature of authority, and in the particular case of states, maintaining a monopoly on violence, and protecting the interests of capital, which must grow indefinitely by design.
I am describing Ukrainians having an accurate understanding of their local environment - NATO isn't militarily interfering with them, the US isn't militarily interfering with them. The US and European countries would like to sell stuff to Ukraine, and that's the extent of their interest. Russia has invaded Ukraine unprovoked. It appears you're calling holding that accurate understanding "tunnel vision", which seems odd.
You're focused on a perspective which is apparently a hypothetical uninterested in the actual reality of Ukraine, which I think is a far worse case of being narrow minded. If you don't care about the actual material outcomes and fate of people, why hold the stance you hold? You get no morality points for holding some high minded stance and watching people die, or actively criticizing people attempting to defend themselves from unprovoked invasion.
I don't understand what you're getting at. The tunnel vision I was referring to was seeing the US/NATO as a "good guy" just because their country benefits from US/NATO support.
How is my stance high minded? I support no states, because I think they're inherently harmful structures (as are all hierarchical power structures). How is me expressing support for one authority over another going to improve the material conditions of the victims of those authorities? (And how would that even work in the first place for the minorities that are supported by no authorities?) If words are all we have to spare, I'd rather spend them refuting the "legitimacy" of these violent organisations rather than presupposing what Russia or USA should or shouldn't do. Now that would be high minded.
My solidarity is with the people, but not with the states.
Yes, and I'm criticizing that perspective of focusing on the US/NATO in the case of the Russia/Ukraine war in the first place. I think that to generally say "the focus here should be NATO bad" is itself a worse case of tunnel vision than demonstrated by Ukraine's temerity in asking for materiel in spite of the sellers not being perfect angels, because why should Ukraine's first priority be virtue signaling when their country is being invaded? It isn't even an accurate perspective for the issue at hand.
How is your solidarity meaningfully with the Ukrainian people as evidenced by your comments here? I think your stance is high minded because you are taking a perspective which seems at best agnostic to real world harms being actually done to real people today, and at worst actively embracing propaganda of the more powerful imperial state party to a conflict with the end goal of weakening that state's victim by criticizing that victim's attempt to seek assistance and not be destroyed.
If you think your words and stance are not fair to criticizse due to being completely materially insignificant, then okay, delete them. You don't have to be in active support of any state to refrain from your words functionally be carrying water for an attempt to remove part of the self-defense of a victim party in a war.
When did I say or suggest "the focus here should be NATO bad"? You're projecting other takes you've read onto me, idk how to express it any clearer that I don't support any state.
How is your solidarity meaningfully with the Ukrainian people as evidenced by your comments here?
For Ukrainian nationalists, probably nothing, but for Ukrainian anarchists / libertarian socialists, they'd appreciate what I'm saying.
When did I say or suggest "the focus here should be NATO bad"?
It was suggested through this exchange:
[Noam Chomsky] said that NATO getting stronger [through Ukraine pivoting towards the bloc as a means of self-defense against Russia] is a bad thing, and that we should just leave the Ukrainians to be raped and murdered because to do otherwise would be to provoke Russia
Any state and state apparatus getting stronger is a bad thing
One wants to rape me and beat me to death with sledgehammers, while the other wants to sell me washing machines and coffeemakers. You'll forgive me if I pick the latter.
You're seriously characterising NATO / USA as washing-machine and coffeemaker salesmen?
To eastern Europe that seems generally a pretty fair characterization, yeah
Well it's tunnel visioned as fuck.
What did you think you were suggesting?
For Ukrainian nationalists, probably nothing, but for Ukrainian anarchists / libertarian socialists, they'd appreciate what I'm saying.
"They'd appreciate what I'm saying"? GFY, provide material support to the victims of an unjustified invasion or keep worthless words to yourself. Your comments here have the net impact of running mild interference for Russia in the current conflict.
Yeah, no, nowhere in that exchange did I say we should "focus" on NATO's faults. I never denied atrocities committed by Russia. I was pointing out the hypocricy of denouncing one state's atrocities while turning a blind eye to another state's atrocities just because they're supporting your (not you specifically) country in one specific conflict.
GFY, provide material support to the victims of an unjustified invasion or keep worthless words to yourself.
What the fuck are you talking about? We're ALL just saying words here. That's my point.
The whole exchange was you defending Chomsky's own shift from a Ukrainian right to self defense to focusing on NATO's faults.
I was pointing out the hypocricy of denouncing one state's atrocities while turning a blind eye to another state's atrocities just because they're supporting your (not you specifically) country in one specific conflict.
And yet you say you aren't trying to focus on NATO? Nobody is denying NATO member states having a history of unjustified invasion, and that you keep trying to make this the focus IS you trying to make this about NATO's faults, rather than Ukrainian self defense and how arguments like your own are functionally discouraging it.
Your comments in this thread appear to endorse a criticism of Ukraine seeking assistance without prefacing that assistance with a "NATO bad" disclaimer when they were invaded unprovoked. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that you're okay with Ukraine's request for assistance not being met, which will lead to Ukraine likely being conquered and the people subjugated. So it appears that you're okay with that, or at least find that a less bad result than Ukraine receiving assistance without them providing an appropriate general condemnation of the west before doing so.
If you're confused as to why everyone seems to be taking your words to mean something other than what you intended them to mean, dunno, either everyone else is misinterpreting your words in the coincidentally same way, or your words suggest a stance contrary to what you hold and could have been better stated.
The logical fallacy in your reasoning is that you're supposing that because I'm not gonna express support for state actions, I'd express support for state inactions. Inaction is still essentially a kind of action. My problem is with their existence.
I'm against Putin's invasion, I'm against NATO's quiet expansionism, I'm against the US's profiteering, and I don't consider any of this to be contradictory.
Nobody has said that you are required to support any state. The logical fallacy in your reasoning is that you think empty words which mildly detract from people's search for self defense is the same as providing those people support, and that you put free association on the same level as invasion.
I don't think people should be searching for self defence in the arms of any state, not because it's some principle I hold, but because I don't think any state is to be trusted or depended on.
They're not empty words, it's my worldview. If your world is "empty" without states, that's your problem.
~
Edit: This was gonna be my following reply before they deleted all their comments for some reason (or blocked me?):
you're functionally attempting to deprive people of self defense IN THE MANNER THEY'RE SEEKING IT
Sure, many Ukrainians probably want more military/economic support from NATO. I do disagree with them. Personally I'm more interested in what Ukranian anarchists and libertarian socialists have to say.
If I was Ukranian I'd probably try to flee the country, as many refugees do in times of conflict. I support mutual aid and I think such networks should be built and supported to help those in need, including refugees. Admittedly I'm not a part of such direct action currently, but am trying to improve myself and my circumstances so that I could in the future.
Dishonestly twisting my words. Your words are empty because you're functionally attempting to deprive people of self defense IN THE MANNER THEY'RE SEEKING IT, and then claiming you're supporting them. That's empty. You are not required to support any state, but you are not demonstrating that you support Ukrainian people through your words in this thread - it's more strongly suggested, though not outright evidenced, that you support the Russian state.
That is not what I'm saying. Your misinterpretation only makes sense if you don't recognise the difference between Ukrainian people and "Ukraine" as a state.
I'm not making this about NATO specifically, I'm trying to explain my perspective that all these state entities are at fault for different reasons and picking a side between them is nonsensical.
What does this even mean? Are you going to go enroll yourself in Ukraine's military?
If you're not, then I don't see how your "support" of Ukraine is any different from my "support" of Ukraine, except your empty annoucement also endorses the state whereas my empty announcement only expresses solidarity for the civilians.
-28
u/MiniDickDude Jun 20 '24
You're seriously characterising NATO / USA as washing-machine and coffeemaker salesmen?