12
Russian Forces Tighten the Noose Around Pokrovsk in Relentless Advance
(southfront.press)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
12 points (65.8% liked)
World News
37168 readers
411 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Russia doesn't have the financial capital necessary to imperialize, nor open markets in the global south that haven't been imperialized by the west already. The Russian Federation would certainly want to imperialize, it has every reason to want to economically if the opportunity arose, but it simply can't. If you're using "imperialism" as a catch-all term for intervention in other countries, then you and jackeroni are fundamentally talking about different things.
No he's right. Wagner was basically created to help Russian proxies in power in Africa and they arm(ed) many militias and fueled plenty of conflict.
Besides the Western empire it's pretty much only Russia who actively participates in armed conflict around the globe. Albeit on a far smaller scale and more concentrated around their own interests.
Those as you called them "Russian proxies" are the Sahel states fighting against western backed jihadists and trying to decolonise from centuries of French occupation. This is opposite of imperialism.
So Russia is helping the Sudanese government from the bottom of their heart and not for monetary gains of gold? I call them proxies because they would fall apart without foreign backing since they don't have the support of the population.
Sure Russia can "back the good guys". In fact since the Western empire is the colonizer of Africa, it means that whatever Russia backs is by default "fighting imperialism". But Russia isn't helping countries out of goodwill. They also want natural resources in return.
China on the other hand is a lot better because they don't get involved militarily.
Nobody here is suggesting that Russia is helping African nations due to some altruistic reasons. They directly benefit from decolonialization and these nations not being under western domination. What you're doing is creating a false equivalence between what Russia is doing in Africa and what the west has done. It doesn't mean that Russia would've behaved differently if they had more resources, but the reality is that they do not have the means to colonize Africa. Yet they can help decolonize it, and they benefit from new trading partners resulting from that.
Being in conflict isn't the same as being an empire. This article describes what I'm talking about pretty well.
It's not "conflicts" though. It's backing a government or militant group, often in the Global South, in exchange for their own benefit
Russia's Wagner Group 'getting rich in Sudan' from gold mines and government
Imperialism would be Russia installing their own puppet regime, then plundering the resources of these nations. What's actually happening there is that Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso are nationalizing resources. https://peoplesdispatch.org/2025/06/23/niger-to-nationalize-uranium-to-wrest-control-over-its-resource-from-france/
Don't they plunder resources though? https://apnews.com/article/central-african-republic-russia-wagner-d955ae10660d8dc5efdb258dd067be13
Yes some break free from the West but Russia is backing full on "bad guys" which, just like what the West does, provide Russia with their resources. Hell they're backing both sides in Sudan, of which the RSF is objectively awful and mostly on the side of the West.
I guess the "positive" is that because Russia provides an alternative for opposition, it becomes far more costly for the Western hegemony to maintain the colonies.
Please point out the resource plundering that you keep talking about. Show me Russian corps taking over resources in these countries, or incidents of Russia forcing them to sell resources below market value the way the west has been doing. I'll wait.
I really recommend you read the article I linked, if you haven't. It directly addresses the Russian Federation. Here's an excerpt from that section:
Simply put, the Russian Federation doesn't have the same mass of financial capital by which they can dominate the global south like the west does. No country intervenes millitantly without doing so for personal benefit, that would be absurd, but that also doesn't mean Russia is an empire either. The vast bulk of Russia's consumption comes from goods it produces fot itself, this is quite opposed to western countries that consume the bulk of the value the global south produces while in turn producing far less.
Russia not being as massive and having far less influence doesn't discard if from doing imperialism. There can be multiple empires.
But are you saying that nothing in my linked article is true? I know NYT regularly makes stuff up but Russia definitely backs the Sudanese government militarily.
The Western backed UAE is currently trying to overthrow the Russian backed government in Sudan with the RSF. The gold flow from Sudan to Russia isn't much of a conspiracy.
The reason why I keep recommending you read the article I linked is because we are talking about 2 entirely different concepts. We can't really have a conversation about imperialism if that means two completely different things between the two of us. I am not saying everything the NYT says is wrong, I'm saying we need to get on the same page to even have a discussion.
If you aren't going to at least read the article and try to understand my perspective, would you at least do me the favor of explaining what you believe imperialism to be? I think that's the least you could do.
We might indeed be talking past eachother. I read your page before writing my response but from what I understand it seems to just add arbitrary requirements to the word "imperialism" so that it can only encompass the West.
Imperialism for me is meddling in the politics of foreign countries for the benefit of the home country and heavily against the interest of the foreign country. Especially when people are put in power whom the population dislike but cannot get rid of because of the foreign backing.
The reason imperialism is outlined the way it is by Marxist-Leninists is because it's a useful definition. It very specifically describes the way the world functions today, what gives rise to imperialism and why, and how to overcome it. Lenin's analysis is useful because it explains how all capitalism works towards imperialism if it is able to, and gives us the tools to overcome it. It explains why revolution happens in the global south, not the global north.
As for your definition, it's a bit loaded here. All countries meddle in others for their own benefits, the second part where you say it's against the interests of the imperialized country is doing all of the heavy lifting. Moreover, there's no systemic analysis for why this comes to be in some countries and not others. The reason Marxism-Leninism is useful is because it's actionable, and helps make predictions for the future.
As for Russia, Sudan is in the midst of a civil war right now, it's in the interests of everyone that it is stabilized as quickly as possible. Russia having an extraction industry in Sudan is not the issue at hand, nor is Russia directy contributing to civil strife. Russia has a good reputation in Africa, genuinely, for being a much better business partner than the west, similar to the PRC but not as good, and this is because Russia lacks the financial capital to dominate African countries.
Sudan is in "civil war" (more like proxy war between imperialist powers) and
The definition on your page excludes Russia from anything by literally excluding Communists from being able to do imperialism.
Not that I would classify Russia as Communist anyway since the fall of the USSR. Though Russia does have a lot of billionaires falling out of windows lately so maybe the transition is ongoing.
Yes, socialist countries cannot be imperialist as Lenin laid imperialism out. Socialist countries can, of course, benefit from trade or interaction with countries of lower development, but without the M-C...P...C'-M' circuit there's no real drive for the same dominance of financial capital nor exporting capital. It makese sense that moving beyond the profit motive means you are no longer beholden to the drives of the profit motive, and lack the financial incentive to practice imperialism.
The way you define imperialism is similar to the way people would define murder, as an action, but one where the definition says nothing about its origins or how to tackle it systemically. As for Russia, it isn't socialist, it just trades with socialist countries heavily and is a nationalist bourgeois country. My point isn't that Russia is in Sudan for any reason other than profit, my point is that Russia does not have the means to financially dominate Sudan and plunder it.
The Roman empire did a lot of imperialism and they predated capitalism quite a bit.
I'm not familiar with the MC P C M circuit but Russia is getting a lot of money out of Sudan which is not going to the Sudanese people And Russia does dominate Sudan. So much so in fact, that America made their own South Sudan. With blackjack and hookers. And a big concentration camp for ICE.
Would it be so that America would colonize all of Sudan if Russia wasn't backing the current Sudanese government? Yes. But Russia isn't exactly delivering much value to the Sudanese people either. And they're getting a lot of gold out of it. This is not altruism.
Yes, Rome was imperialist, I didn't say they weren't. The reasons I say socialist countries aren't imperialist don't apply to Rome.
As for the M-C...P...C'-M' circuit, that does apply to Russia. Russia is capitalist. The circuit described is Money to buy the commodities "means of production" and "labor power," which then go to production, which results in new commodities of higher value sold for a greater sum of money than initially fronted. Capitalism is dominated by this circuit, socialism is not.
As for Russia engaging in "altruism," I never stated they were. I think you're misreading a lot of what I'm saying. I'm not saying that in a mean way, I just think you should do a reread. I don't distill all geopolitical interaction to just "imperialism vs altruism," there can be beneficial trade that isn't imperialist. The way Russia engages with Africa is qualitatively different from the US and Europe, and more similar to the PRC, because Russia lacks the financial capital to do so. It isn't altruism.
The problem with Communist literature is that it keeps referencing unfamiliar terms in every single article and it seems to wholly reject using common language it would be possible to do so. Meaning it's impossible for anyone who hasn't read all other literature to understand what's being said. Previously I tried reading Communist pieces, which I believe you linked, and ended up at descriptions of what elite circles were after 30 minutes of heavy literature. Which is why I urge Communists to stop using French terms like "proletariat" and "bourgeousie" (and especially "petit bourgeousie" that's just the stupidest term).
That tangent aside, I don't think Russia and China are comparable in Africa. China arguably benefits the local population by building infrastructure, whereas Russia doesn't do much more than extract resources.
The relative difficulty of getting into Marxist-Leninist theory is a totally valid point. Part of the issue stems from the fact that Marxism-Leninism is over a century old, and Marxism is older than that. However, using a bunch of synonyms can make it more confusing to look back on theory and understand it, it boxes us into contemporary terms that the capitalist superstructure has molded its favor. "Business owner" sounds much less nefarious than "bourgeoisie," because the former has connotations grounded in our daily capitalist experience.
This is more of a philosophical argument, though, your base frustration is absolutely valid. It's an investment to read theory, I'm not going to pretend that it's all obvious. I've been reading theory for years, and I still don't have a firm grasp on everything, just the fundamentals. I just disagree with cedeing control of language to the bourgeoisie.
As for Russia and China, Russia is closer to China than it is to the west when it comes to Africa. Russia does not have the financial capital to dominate Africa. The terms of its trade have to be more beneficial to African countries than the west, because they can't rely on financial domination to fix terms. China isn't developing Africa out of simple altruism either, it needs minerals and customers as well, but the qualitative difference between Russia/China vs the West is that the West takes everything that would normally be invested in development as profits for themselves, while Russia cannot do the same, and China has different material incentives as it needs to build up international trade and its own self-reliance to survive capitalist encirclement.
If older Marxist theory is too impenetrable, a good work I'm reading now is How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney. It helps explain that trade isn't bad itself, it's the nature of capitalist imperialism that underdevelops African countries. Russia doesn't have the same tools nor resources to do so.
Working against imperialism for selfish, pragmatic reasons, is still anti-imperialist. There isn't an ideological basis for it, sure, but the actions fundamentally undermine global imperialism as the primary obstacle towards global socialism.
As for jackeroni posting pro-Russian sources, they've stated that they intend on making the information field more even than purely using western sources. Exposure to non-western points of view is helpful analysis.
As a side note, there's no need to say "Mr/Ms." You can just say "they," use the usernames, or use the listed pronouns if people have them.
The Russo-Ukrainian War has generally not worked out in the west's favor, and the resources tied up in it have allowed countries in the global south to align themselves more with the PRC or even pursue national sovereignty, like Burkina Faso. Further, the Russo-Ukrainian War has shown that the west is severely deficient in industrial production, the west has flashy toys but can't field them for long. It hasn't strengthened the imperialist bourgeoisie, in fact it's been more of an increase in imperial overhead costs in keeping the system going.
As for jackeroni's agenda, they are pro-Russian in the Russo-Ukrainian War. I wasn't trying to argue against that point. I disagree with the appeared implication that jackeroni is paid propaganda, they haven't made that seem apparent and sufficient evidence is needed, but if your point is that being pro-Russian means the post itself should be discarded I also disagree. Careful analysis of the facts at hand requires looking at all sides, which is something I think you're agreeing with.
I don't follow, if Russia is fundamentally opposed to western imperialism for its own selfish, pragmatic, even existential reasons, then it's working against imperialism. Russia is not allowed to be a cog in the imperial machine, it asked to be allowed in 2 and a half decades ago but was denied. Russia is a bourgeois nationalist country, sure, it isn't a beacon of socialism, but it's backed into a corner and forced into working with socialist countries like the PRC and working against global imperialism just to continue existing. Russia can't be an empire, it has neither the colonies to extract from nor the financial capital to do so.
As for being propaganda or not, do you list, say, the NYT as western propaganda in the comments too? I think most people are capable of recognizing pro-Russian and anti-Russian sources at this point, so I'm not quite sure what point you're serving other than to draw additonal emphasis.
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I'm using Lenin's analysis of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. The global north/south divide is imperialism. Russia is not the only country incentivized more to work against the global system of western hegemony, the entire global south stands to gain. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, but isn't synonymous with private property. Imperialism is currently a system by which the west loots and plunders the world through massive financial capital and uses millitary force to cement this system. It's why most goods are produced in the global south yet consumed in the global north. Russia isn't a benefactor of that system, it isn't a participant, and is materially incentivized into working against it despite relying on private property because its kept out of it.
Anti-imperialism is about fighting imperialism. We cannot fundamentally progress towards fighting private property without accurately analyzing and engaging the system that most directly perpetuates it globally. Countries in the global south are intentionally underdeveloped to keep them under the thumb of empire, and are attacked with force if they express sovereignty and lack nukes.
As for pointing out when the media is biased, it always is. Bias isn't avoidable. There's hidden bias and overt bias, it's important to distinguish but ultimately all media is told from a viewpoint and with an agenda.
I truly don't see how a bunch of NATO equipment being destroyed and a significant amount of western resources being poured in as overhead costs is somehow maintaining the status quo. Palestinian liberation heated up, economic ties to the PRC increased, Russia was further economically isolated from the west and had to solidify its alliances further with anti-imperialist countries, and more.
Imperialism isn't a system that everyone perpetuates and participates in. The largest obstacle in the world for any country building socialism, like Cuba, the PRC, or even socialist states that don't exist yet, is the US Empire and western imperialism in general. There is a clear set of benefactors of this global plunder, the global north, and a clear set of victims, the global south. In order to build socialism, we must overcome that system, and that requires us to struggle against it, countries in the global south to break free (like Burkina Faso is doing), etc, and those tasks are halted if NATO is given free reign and imperial resources are itching to be used.
Russia isn't ideologically working against imperialism, but it does do because it needs to to survive.
The west is heavily de-industrialized. There's increased demand for millitary equipment, but very little in the way of factories to reproduce them. Palestine has benefited massively from the west not being able to fully commit to Israel, as an example. There just aren't the actual factories necessary to continue to front proxy wars for NATO, again, big flashy toys but no real industry to keep fielding them. It's the cost of empire increasing. I cannot fathom a world where this is benefiting empire, just like how the cost of maintaining empire increasing led to the collapse of the British Empire and the rise of the US Empire.
As for Russia benefiting from imperialism, no, not really. The vast bulk of Russia's capital exports are for tax havens. Russia has billionaires and the ultra-wealthy, but is absolutely sidelined by the west and is blocked out of looting and plundering the global south because of it. Also, selling the west gas isn't the same as plundering the global south through financial domination, trade isn't imperialism.
As for toxicity, I can't really say I agree. Don't put too much stock into downvotes, but at the same time, try to reconsider your own positions.
Imagine acting this way and being pressed that people are being toxic to you. There's no one in the world who could have been more patient with you and you turn around in spit in their face like this while complaining about the toxicity of the sub.
You haven't been met with a fraction of hostility and downvotes you deserve. You showed up in the first place to be a vapid piece of shit troll and you haven't changed your attitude since. I sincerely hope you make good on your threat and fuck off forever.
Lol
I hOpE yOU fINd hApPIneSS sOmeDAy
feel free to provide free entertainment for the rest of us any time
I do both, thanks for the concern.
There's literally no other way to interpret your comment
shut the fuck up, brat
sometimes i wonder why people shit on .ml so much.
sometimes.
Because like you they are some mixture of stupid and evil.
Are you stupid because you don't realize I'm being completely fair by coming back at that shithead for being hypocritical and a troll? Or are you evil because you're just at an ideological dead end and mindlessly defend US empire?
y’all are a hoot
Literally what MAGA say
Erasing all context like this until being mean to someone who (well nevermind what they did or said) is the only offense that happened.
You libs are constantly accusing people with actual politics of being the same as MAGA. But it's always projection.