78
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 13 Aug 2025
78 points (67.1% liked)
Asklemmy
49939 readers
505 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Others have given great answers, but the short-answer is that it's not a "disinformation campaign," nor is it organized. It's because Lemmy has a lot of leftists, especially Marxist-Leninists, and MLs both support AES ("Actually Existing Socialism"), like the PRC, and critically support capitalist countries forced into allying with them against the Global North's imperialism.
In terms of their net impacts on the world, the US and EU far outweigh the evils of Russia. Russia is certainly flawed, but unlike the US and EU Russia doesn't rely on expropriating vast amounts of wealth from the Global South, sanctioning, couping, or genociding those who go against imperialism. It isn't because Russia is some moral paragon, but because they simply lack the means to be imperialist, they are boxxed in by the west and lack the financial capital to rely on expropriation of wealth.
As for the PRC, it gets far more support, because it's the leading socialist country. 800 million people were lifted from poverty, and it's rapidly improving. Even when the west runs propaganda against them, like the COVID lab leak theory or the Chinese spy balloon hysteria, the PRC is being widely supported by the Global South as the PRC is providing a genuine alternative to the genocidal west.
If you (or anyone else) want an introduction to Marxism-Leninism, here's my Read Theory, Darn It! introductory reading guide!
Russia is literally conducting an imperialist invasion of Ukraine right now...
I can't stand this shit when fake leftists defend authoritarian, imperialist states because they oppose the west.
Just because Russia "opposes" the west doesn't make it any better than them.
The most prolific invader in the world - NATO - did a coup in Ukraine, tried to bring weapons and personnel to Russia's most important border near Russia's most populated parts, and has been conducting terror attacks against the Russian population.
The rest of the world has every right to defend against NATO, so you either have a good explanation for what else Russia could have done in this regard, or your criticism of Russia is not serious.
The fact that Russia hasn't done anything nearly as bad as things like the invasion of Iraq - let alone the genocide of Palestine - does make Russia better.
You mean when the largest european democratic movement in decades ousted a Russian puppet who refused to pass a bill ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament?
This never happened.
NATO is a defensive alliance. The closest it's ever gotten to starting a war was Afghanistan and not every member participated.
And before you wind up the next "gotcha", there are lots of dog shit imperialist countries in NATO, but we're discussing the organization itself here.
Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, Afghanistan?
And also this is your moral foundation? It doesn't matter what crimes Russia is committing so long as they never commit more crimes than the US?
Previously:
Right. I agree that NATO tacitly supports US imperialism but you're also conflating the actions of the US with NATO as a whole. Turkey did not invade Afghanistan for example.
Also the idea that NATO caused the Bosnian Genocide is laughable. The bombing is the only reason it stopped. Your argument is literally "those boys, women and children were CIA assets, trust me bro"
But regardless, I think we're not actually engaging correctly with each other's points here. Let's refocus with some simple facts.
Do Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves from Russian imperial aggression?
https://thegrayzone.com/2025/08/04/us-ethnic-cleansing-serbs-croat/
Not 'tacitly', and not just the US' imperialism.
You are blatantly trying to absolve the glorified USian provinces of imperialism and colonialism by downplaying their complicity and willingness in subjecting the world to these horrors.
You are, again, trying to downplay the actions of the US' glorified provinces that is the rest of NATO, and distance them from their own actions.
Turkey did invade Afghanistan. And other places, together with the rest of NATO.
Given that you keep being demonstrated to be wrong about everything, you should stop laughing about things that people who are consistently correct tell you.
The most prolific invader in the world that is engaging in at least one obvious and high-profile genocide doing a coup in a country that neighbours another country's most populated areas and then attempting to bring weapons and personnel to the relevant border is, in fact, an act of aggression, and the rest of the world has every right to defend itself against NATO.
As a response to NATO's aggression.
Notably, you are yet to explain what Russia should have done, despite you being prompted to.
Did Germans have a right to defend themselves from the Allies' 'imperial aggression' in 1930-1940s?
Also, going to note that you are completely fine with terror attacks conducted by your empire, including against the Russian population which you deny any right to defend itself against you.
The rest of the world has a right to defend itself against NATO. The population of the most prolific invader in the world that is currently engaging in at least one high-profile genocide is not the priority in this situation (unless, again, you think that the rest of the world should roll over for you).
Let's look at this from another perspective.
Russia has completely failed it's "special military operation" in Ukraine and is bogged down in a war of attrition with a nation that is not in NATO.
NATO countries are supplying a trickle of arms to Ukraine, but without a single NATO boot on the ground, without a single aircraft carrier, Russia has been stopped in its tracks and has failed to complete the majority of it's military objectives, having even lost actual Russian territory to Ukrainian counter offensives.
Clearly Russia would not stand a chance if NATO decided to invade them.
So that begs the question, if you believe NATO wants to invade Russia, and it's clear Russia couldn't stop them, why haven't they?
Right away going to note that you are yet to explain what Russia should have done about NATO's aggression.
Not sure how this would be relevant even if it wasn't fiction.
Again, you should stop making claims without bothering to double-check them. You are woefully underequipped to make assumptions here.
Non-Ukrainian NATO troops have been involved, both in the form of mercenaries and de jure NATO military personnel, with some of the weapons that Ukraine has been using requiring the participation of NATO troops.
Not sure why you think that this is in any way relevant, but Russia has literally been winning more and more ground, with a very recent takeover of estimated more than 100 km^2 within 24 hours.
Your sources are outdated. Kursk has been liberated.
Either way, this shows that Russia's concerns about NATO are not unfounded, so you are now just contradicting your earlier implied claims that Russia should have just ignored NATO's activities.
This is basically an original German nazi talking point about Slavs being subhuman and standing no chance against Germany for some reason.
Either way, you are now claiming that Russia is right to be concerned about NATO's aggression, and that every polity that tries to join NATO should be fought against like the enemies of humanity that they are.
Again, you are quite literally working off of wrong assumptions that nobody who has been following the conflict holds.
Yes, Russia’s gamble to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table using a minimal amount of troops and minimal force failed, because the US & UK blocked it. So now it’s a slow, grinding war of attrition.
All signs point to Russia winning this war, yet somehow you’re framing it as them losing 🤷 Do you know what their objectives are?
No one in history has succeeded in taking Russia with an invasion force, not even before Russia had nuclear weapons, and now it has more of them than anyone else. Not Napoleon, not Hitler. It’s two-thirds larger than the next-largest country.
The NATO countries have de-industrialized themselves. They’re in no condition to invade Iran right now, never mind Russia. They don’t even have the industrial capacity to properly arm Ukraine. Russia meanwhile hasn’t de-industrialized nearly as much and isn’t running out of materiel.
I believe nothing of the sort. What the US wants is for Russia to be regime changed, Balkanized, and re-neocolonized. And they want it without needing to put any of their own boots on the ground. Ukraine is a pawn on the US’s “grand chessboard.” The US wanted this proxy war. Previously.
Edit to add: Oh, that one was already in my previous comment. Sorry for repeating myself. Here’s a talk by Parenti to summarize.
Tell me you didn’t engage with the material I provided without telling me you didn’t engage with the material I provided. Here’s another: Michael Parenti » To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia
I engaged with it. It's saying the Serbs were responding to a proxy war initiated by the CIA when they were literally just exterminating Bosnians.
You can give me your summary but I'm not reading any more dubious links on the matter, especially when link bashing is being used as a rhetoric device to prevent your argument being challenged.
And again:
Do Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves from Russian imperialism?
I’m “link bashing” because I’ve already covered this territory—with sources/evidence—several times on Lemmy, though not nearly as many times as the Ukraine war.
Okay? No one is saying otherwise.
Again no one is saying otherwise. As for Russian “imperialism,” I already covered it elsewhere in this very post, and dozens of times before.
I'm very confused now. Because it seems like we actually agree with each other then and I'm not sure why we're fighting.
I think NATO sucks, but I also think Russia does. The only thing I care about in this situation is Ukrainian autonomy.
If you believe Ukraine has a right to self defense and self determination then we're in agreement.
Notably, you seem fine with Ukraine invading Iraq and Syria.
Also notably, you do not seem to care about Russia's autonomy, Syria's autonomy, Iraq's autonomy, etc.
Do Iraq, Iran, Russia, Syria (before your invasion), Palestine, Libya (before your invasion), Afghanistan, non-occupied Korea, etc. have a right to self-defense and self-determination?
I think we agree that, in the abstract, Westphalian states have a right to self-defense. That’s been the consensus for almost 300 years, and it’s baked into the UN charter.
But two things can be true at the same time: that the Ukrainian state has a right to self-defense and that the US, NATO, and Ukraine poked the bear for decades to get this reaction. Western promises to Russia were broken and red lines were crossed, over & over for decades, until the inevitable breaking point due to perceived existential threats.
Did the post-coup eastern & southern separatist states not also have a right to self defense against the Ukrainian coup government and the fascist Banderites that Ukraine and the US armed, trained, and supported? Were those separatists wrong to request aid from Russia for almost a decade before the 2022 invasion? Russia was very patient given the circumstances.
Russia does indeed suck, but less so than NATO at the moment. The primary difference is the Global North’s neocolonialism, which is modern-day imperialism.
Previously:
EDIT: People should stop claiming that the gang of states that are currently engaging in at least one genocide, keep invading everywhere, doing coups is a 'defensive alliance'.
This is silly.
That's quite a fantasy you have concocted there.
Firstly, just describing any pro-NATO movement, i.e. a movement that supports literal colonialism, as 'democratic' is extremely silly. Especially when such movements are known to be created by NATO and include literal politicians and open nazis. Going to also note that you are fine with the perpetual dictator Zelenskiy.
Secondly, everybody is familiar with things like the leaked correspondence between USian representatives in Ukraine picking who gets to be in what position in the new government weeks before the completion of the coup, as well as them bragging about how much money they spent on subjugating Ukraine.
Thirdly, you can't even name what was supposedly so bad about Yanukovich. It's pretty obvious that his sin - in your eyes - was that he did not sell Ukraine off to NATO.
Oh no. An elected president vetoed a bill that was being protested against by the same people that you love being in power.
Mind sharing why an elected president vetoing a bill justifies NATO completing yet another coup? Sounds like your standards are very much not applied uniformly.
This is, again, silly.
Do you want to tell us that Ukraine was not trying to join NATO in the years 2014-2022, and that no relevant claims were made by NATO?
This is also very very silly.
Nobody can seriously claim that invasions of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine (complete with a very obvious genocide), Libya, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, etc. - all done by NATO - were 'defensive'.
The only 'defensive' thing about NATO is how it protects its members from facing justice for centuries of ongoing colonialism, including for settler-colonial and other genocides.
Between Iraq and Afghanistan, there is not a single de jure member of NATO that did not participate. And those were very obviously wars started by NATO, with NATO invading those countries.
There is also the fact that not every glorified USian province sending troops neither makes those non-NATO actions, nor negates other forms of complicity in the activities.
If every member of this organisation is a 'dog-shit imperialist state' - and they all are, - then we can conclude that there is no defense that can be levied for the organisation itself that is the most prolific invader in the world and that is currently engaging in at least one high-profile genocide.
This is also silly.
Russia did not invade Afghanistan and Syria. Russia literally helped Syria against your invasion forces and DAESH (which has since become yet another de facto part of NATO, if it ever wasn't).
Russia fought against the separatist in Chechnya with NATO's support. The part of the Russian government that supported the separation of Chechnya were shelled with tanks by pro-NATO forces.
Georgia was literally the one that attacked the Ossetian separatists. This is doubly silly, considering that you support Chechen separatists.
Again, the rest of the world has every right to defend itself from NATO. Look at what you did to Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Palestine. On what grounds should the rest of the world just roll over for you?
The Russo-Ukrainian War is about forcing Ukraine to be neutral to NATO, and resolving the conflict between Kiev and the Donetsk and Luhanks People's Republics that requested Russian support after the Minsk agreements fell through due to Ukraine failing to keep up their end of the bargain. It isn't an imperialist war, the goal is not expropriation of wealth, it's to keep NATO out of the main path by which Russia has historically been invaded from the ground, such as in World War II by Nazi Germany.
Russia is not worthy of critical support just because "west bad." Russia can't imperialize countries like the west has. It tried, back when Putin requested to join NATO 2 decades ago, but Russia was denied because the Nationalists in Russia didn't want to open their markets up to foreign plunder like in the 90s. As a consequence, Russia is forced to ally with the anti-imperialist countries, largely made up of countries in the Global South and socialist countries. The Sahel States, for example, are turning to Russia and the PRC as an alternative to western plunder, because Russia physically cannot imperialize in the same way the west does. It fundamentally lacks the ability to export vast amounts of capital and outsource production.
If you're going to call leftists "fake," then you should at least do the due dilligence to familiarize yourself with the Marxist analysis of imperialism.
The Minsk agreement has nothing to do with the formation of the Donetsk "republic".
Though Russia respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine was a big part of it nobody seems to remember.
Yanukovych refused to sign a free trade agreement with the EU that the Ukrainian Parliament had ratified, leading to the largest democratic protests in Europe in decades. When he was ousted from power, Russia realized they were losing their puppet, invaded Crimea and fully backed fringe separatist movements providing money, arms and Russian regulars on "vacation" to generate a pretext for the 2014 full scale invasion.
NATO is a voluntary defensive alliance. The only reason it has expanded is because Russia continually tries to invade the former Soviet republics.
If eastern Europe wasn't terrified of Russia, they wouldn't be applying to join.
Sure Putin at some point allegedly expressed interest in joining NATO. Who the fuck knows what happened but he also allegedly refused to apply for membership.
Do you have any idea what the market is like in Russia? Have you ever even visited? It's a state run by robber barons with palaces and yachts all over the world. The west couldn't plunder what Putin and his cronies have already robbed.
Look at what China managed to build since the 90s and look at the failed state of Russia after decades of Putin's rule.
You mean the gold mines Wagner was running in Africa to plunder for the Russian war chest?
You acknowledge Russia wants to, but you admit the only reason they don't, is that they can't? So we're in some sort of agreement here.
Attempting to expand your countries power through military action is the textbook definition of imperialism.
Marx (correctly) views imperialism as an inevitability of a capitalist system due to its drive to expand and accumulate capital, but he didn't define the word.
What's most disappointing is how little respect is given to democratic movements by authoritarians posing as socialists. People completely ignore the voices of Ukrainians fighting to defend their homeland.
Which Ukrainians?
Previously: If not for the US/NATO, this war wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
Which Russians?
See how easy it is to write this bullshit? And mine is actually true.
You've rejected western propaganda, which is fair, but then rather than engaging with reality critically, you've just bought into Russian propaganda without a second thought.
What’s your point, that Ukrainians are an undifferentiated mass of Euro stans like our government and media portray them? Because that’s bullshit. We’re not talking about Russians, we’re talking about Ukrainians, including those with linguistic, cultural, familial, and business ties to Russia.
Do you think I’m watching RT and reading Pravda? Almost everything I’ve read or heard has come from Western sources. Almost all the links in my previous comment are Western sources.
The western trade agreement required privatization of safety nets and general austerity politics, the Russian loans did not. The Russian loans had more respect for the sovereignty of Ukraine than the western loans, hence the decisuon of Yanukovych. The nationalists in the west couped the government with the assistance of the west, installing the Banderite nationalist regime, while the ethnic Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk seceded after seeing their president get couped.
NATO is an alliance of imperialist states that has been led by Nazis like Adolf Heusinger. Its sole purpose is to perpetuate imperialism, and encircle countries that oppose having their markets plundered by the west. Russia is not trying to "continually invade" countries.
Putin wanted to join NATO because Putin wanted Russia to be able to imperialize the global south like the west does. Pretty clear-cut.
Yes, Russia is a deeply flawed nationalist country owned by capitalists. The PRC is socialist, which is why it has achieved far more in the same span, and did not collapse into capitalism like Russia did.
The Sahel States are a coalition of anti-imperialist countries that are nationalizing their industry and focusing more on trading finished goods than raw materials. This was impossible when the west was imperializing them, Russia is not imperializing the Sahel States because they can't.
Yes, Russia is a deeply flawed nationalist country that, by circumstance, is forced to align with progressive, anti-imperialist movements and socialist countries. Nobody is saying "Russia is a perfect country that is ideologically pure," that's the point of critical support.
Russia is not trying to expand their power through conquest, their goal is to demillitarize Ukraine and ensure its neutrality with NATO, as Ukraine is the best front to stage a war on Russia.
Marx analyzed imperialism in its very early stages, it was Lenin that expanded that theory into the Marxist canon and thoroughly established and analyzed it. There are practically no Marxists that reject Lenin's analysis of imperialism.
I do listen to Ukrainians, support for the war is falling sharply, and the ethnic Russians in LPR and DPR have wanted independence from Ukraine for over a decade. The best thing for the Ukrainian working class is a quick surrender of the 4 oblasts, NATO neutrality, and a prompt socialist revolution to oust the Banderite regime.
Except when they democratically decide on closer ties with the EU?
I want to focus on your belief that NATO started this war and that Russia is somehow defending itself because it's inherently contradictory. It requires you to believe the following:
Can you speak more to those ideas?
It was a fast moving process. Unclear when IMF interference demands for austerity were known. Russia did make a much better offer than EU, and Yanukovych was right to prefer it.
While there is an obvious pull among the young to get western values, CIA/US state propaganda operations to fabricate that opinion, was done purely for nazification and warmongering purposes. The idiocy of the public makes them resort to their programing. Not informed pragmatic study of all alternatives.
The nazi rulership, installed by US, immediately massacred opposition in Odessa, removed Russian language rights, and wanted to seize Crimean port out of Russian lease. Ukrainian naziism has become the new western liberal values, but most people don't like nazis, and especially not their "subhuman labelled" targets for extermination.
Your previous post was dishonest as well.
I think you're conflating two separate issues. The IMF was not involved in trade talks between the EU and Ukraine. It was when Ukraine was seeking loans but Yanukovych didn't reject to ratify the EU bill because of the IMF.
To what end goal?
Is it so hard to believe that given the choice between closer ties to the EU or a gay hating, poverty stricken state run by robber barons and oligarchs, Ukrainians might have preferred the EU?
This isn't a fair argument, I could say the same thing about you, and you could say the same about me. How can we find truth when we both believe the other is simply regurgitating programming from some shadowy propaganda source.
I'll ask this: Do you feel yourself entrenched in these views or are you actually open to changing them through discussion?
This didn't happen though.
This also didn't happen.
Does your confidence exceed your ignorance, or are you just trolling now?
dozens of people died and nobody was prosecuted, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
this feels like you're gaslighting, they made Ukrainian mandatory to use in public life, the only exceptions given were for EU languages and English. Russian, Belarusian and Yiddish did not get those exceptions.
Yes he was delaying ratification over obvious anger, and poor electoral math, surrounding austerity demands.
Yes. Manufacturing liberalism is easy because liberal freedoms are humanist. Good and smart people can want liberalism and trade diversification. Does the US empire spend $5B on an operation to increase but fucking, and enabling you to marry your buttfucker? No. The CIA creates division in nations purely to diminish enemies it needs as a demonic evil entity that needs enemies to justify budget, and needs corrupt CIA allegiant puppetry everywhere for championing US oligarchy dominance. Ukraine nazification and war path to current "diminish Russia to the last Ukrainian policy" was set with the 2014 coup.
I am entrenched in the pure demonic evil of US empire propaganda, and the evil in the lost souls who tolerate, accept and normalize its demonism. More importantly, your delusional propaganda denials does not impact Russia, and Russians, understanding of reality and understanding its imperative defense from demonic empire actions.
NATO has been pressing eastward despite making agreements with Russia that it would not. From the beginning, NATO was formed as an anti-communist alliance, and even after the Soviet Union fell it has been a key tool in encircling Russia to get them to open up their markets to foreign plunder, a tried and true strategy used elsewhere.
Yanukovych was correct in not pursuing the western requirement of austerity politics and becoming a puppet of western countries. NATO used this as an opportunity to overthrow Yanukovych and install a far-right Banderite regime. When the Donbass region wanted to secede, Kiev responded with ethnic repression in the form of language suppression and outright shelling, shelling which accelerated in the weeks leading up to Russian invasion.
With a far-right regime that is violently Russophobic and is cozying up to the number 1 anti-Russian millitary alliance in the world right on their borders, Russia decided to invade when diplomacy fell through. Russia does not give a shit about extraction from Ukraine. They are not in this for the plunder. Russia purely wants Ukraine to promise NATO neutrality, and stop the ethnic cleansing in Donetsk and Luhansk.
This is the bog-standard communist take. Orgs like The Party for Socialism and Liberation have released statements, same as FRSO's statement. You are unfamiliar with communism yet are trying to use it against itself.
Did you respond to the correct post? This isn't relevant to what I asked.
It's entirely relevant and I directly answered you.
You didn't answer the question.
You believe Maidan was orchestrated by NATO without evidence but without any critical thought believe the separatist movements are real.
Davel pretty much covered it. Part of the Maidan coup was legitimate, but the west took advantage of it and steered it towards its own interests. The seperatist movements were sparked by ethnic suppression and the coup against the president they supported.
The Maidan coup is precisely why separatist movements came to be of any significance in the first place.
The Maidan massacre was a false flag attack by fascist Banderite snipers with US support. The protests were partly real and partly astroturfed: they were funded & advised by the US/UK in the interest of regime change. Previously.
Here’s how it works: we look for the sorest division/tension within the country we want to regime change, and we take advantage of it and inflame it, because that’s the easiest and most effective way of getting the regime change and/or Balkanization we want. It’s what we did in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and we’ve been reusing the playbook ever since.
In case you don’t recognize this face, it’s bin Laden.
FAIR: Forgotten Coverage of Afghan ‘Freedom Fighters’
The blueprint of regime change operations - How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
It’s what we did to China in the late 1980s in Beijing and again recently in Xinjiang.