84
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 22 Aug 2025
84 points (83.3% liked)
World News
37427 readers
349 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
The 4 oblasts, which is what Russia is trying to annex, voted to join Russia. The Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (not socialist, despite the name) both requested Russia to come in and help them against Kiev's shelling of them.
Russia has no colonies, not since the Tsar. As the USSR, it was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and as the modern Russian Federation, it is too poor to practice imperialism, it lacks the financial capital necessary to plunder the global south. The dissolution of the USSR was devatating for their economy, even though they are capitalist now and thus would logically benefit from imperialism, they can't actually practice it as the western Empire is already set up and fully saturates the global south.
Are you really citing those referendums? Putting aside the MANY criticisms of the methodology, there's no referendum on earth that would legitimately get 85% turnout and 85% support without being supported by both sides.
Not reading the rest, because it is ludicrous to cite those referendum. And those blatantly fake referendums serve to de-legitimize Russia's invasion almost as much as the hospitals they've bombed.
If you have evidence other than your personal doubts, let me see it. I don't think it's surprising that regions that are predominantly Russian ethnically, culturally, and linguistically, that were in a bloody decade long civil war, would vote to join Russia.
As I mentioned, I put aside the criticisms of methodology and just went wit the official claims of Russia.
Try reading this to get you started if common sense isn't enough for you. If you still have issues, don't come to me, do your own research because I can't be bothered doing more than a wikipedia search for you.
Liberals in a nut shell
I've read it already, but thanks. Again, I don't find it surprising at all that a group of ethnic Russians that have been in a decade-long bloody civil war would vote to join Russia over staying at war with Kiev.
Try not to break your back bending over backwards that hard to justify Russian imperialism.
None of this is backbreaking, it's well-established history even outlets like the New York Times were reporting on. Further, annexation isn't imperialism by itself, the goal of the war isn't plunder or expropriation of wealth, it's to establish a buffer zone so the west can't as easily invade by land. My stance is similar to communist orgs like PSL and FRSO. I'm a communist.
The gymnastics you're displaying in avoiding the hard details of what's going on, on the other hand, is more back breaking. Why are you batting so hard for the Banderites and the US Empire? Why not support the people of Donetsk and Luhansk?
Lolwut. The same west who's sole military arm is currently licking Putin's boots? Seems to me Russia had a much simpler and easier strategy if that's all they wanted: bide their time and not get involved with any foreign military actions.
America seems to be collapsing (with or without their interference) and Europe wouldn't have any public support for militarization without Putin rolling tanks around and brandishing nukes. NATO could have easily dissolved without doing anything in a decade or two, it was already starting to be viewed as a Cold War relic in the west.
You're saying it's logical to risk all of that just to help some poor, needy rebels? They need to defend themselves by painting themselves as the largest active aggressor? That's just straight up bad geopolitical strategy. The 'Merica-Bad goggles have really messed with your vision.
The west is not "licking Putin's boots." They've realized that decades of millitary-industrial complex rot has decayed productive capacity, so the west has flashy tools but lacks the logistics to field a long-term war. Still, NATO served its function, as a millitant alliance of imperialist states meant to terrorize and force the world into capitulation.
It isn't just the US that is collapsing, Europe is too. It depends on the same system of imperialism the US spearheads, that's why the EU acts in near lock-step with the US when it comes to foreign policy. NATO will not dissolve until imperialism dissolves, even if it requires making up a new enemy constantly.
Russia likely cares little for the seperatists in the Donbass region. What it cares about is NATO neutrality, and establishing a buffer zone in the Donbass that prevents NATO from launching an easy land-invasion over the same route the Nazis took in World War II in Operation Barbarossa. It seems that Russia is going to achieve all of its stated goals, so if that's "bad geopolitical strategy" then I'd have to say that there aren't many countries I'd say qualify for "good geopolitical strategy."
I don't have "Merica bad" goggles, I'm a Marxist-Leninist. The US Empire is bad, but my thought-process, like other communists, focuses on taking a dialectical materialist approach, including analysis of imperialism in the west, and how that drives western foreign policy, and reaction towards that policy. If you want some place to start with reading theory, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list.
Nothing you've touched on has any relevancy to your purported support of the people in the Donbass region. Unless your theory is that Russia is a bastion of socialist empowerment and not 5 capitalists in a trench coat, every single one of your talking points is carrying water for Russian imperial ambition. Swapping out one master for another isn't breaking your shackles. I hope Moscow is at least cutting you a check for your hard work.
The guy in charge of the nukes has been in closer contact with Moscow than any western official in the last 50+ years. He's constantly spewing support on stage, in the media and in private meetings. He's been holding this stance well before his first term in office. How can NATO be any kind of threat when he's in your pocket?
His own sycophants are constantly spouting the same NATO talking points as you. Truly you're a student of 20th century Stalinism when your foreign policy somehow aligns perfectly with every contemporary fascist and proto-fascist government.
When did I deny that? I'm pointing out that taking this aggressive route is a backward approach if maintaining a strong defensive stance is your primary goal. It's almost like they wanted to gamble for more unstated goals than just that. Taking territory is only necessary if you insist on a future escalation or want to exploit its people/resources.
I know you're going to try to explain how this obvious Bad Thing (exploitation and escalation) is really a Good Thing via some Rube Goldberg-esque logical knots. Save your keyboard, I'm just not gonna buy that some special flavors of international meddling via national ambitions are good when your whole argument is formulated against it.
And don't bother with your cherry picked reading list. It's all formal dialectics until a different source makes some cogent points at the flaws in your dogma. Then it's endless genetic fallacies and character attacks on sources with no original thought or debate. We can have a real discussion when you come up with a talking point that isn't copy-paste.
This is very silly.
All of what I said is relevant, being a communist is more than just supporting socialist countries. It also means supporting movements against obstacles for socialism, and progressive national liberation movements as well. Palestine has been most consistently supported by communists, despite not being socialist. In the case of Russia, it's indeed a capitalist country, but one that is forced to work against western imperialism, the greatest obstacle to socialism globally, and do lots of trade with socialist countries like the PRC.
Trump is not in Putin's pocket. You need to pay attention to what politicians actually do. Trump has been consistently arming Ukraine, now that it looks like there's no chance of Ukrainian victory, Trump wants to look like a peacemaker and claim credit for ending the war. Simple as that. Russia does not have nearly the influence you fear they do, stop with this BlueAnon nonsense.
You remain deeply confused, because your claim is that Russia either intends on plundering the Donbass, or using it as a staging ground for further attack. Neither of those points are backed by evidence, though, and run counter to the stated aims for Russia, and the previous Minsk agreements! Your argument rests on vapor and vibes, and is trying to pretend all annexation is imperialism, which just wraps around to not understanding anything at all.
Not sure what you mean by your last point. My reading list is designed to be relatively quick to get through, otherwise I'd put literally everything on it. If you have a suggestion for something I am missing, then feel free to make a suggestion! What do you mean by "copy and paste" arguments? My arguments are very consistent with other communist orgs like PSL and FRSO. I suggest you read at least the Prolewiki article on imperialism. Here's there section on the Russian Federation:
He has demonstrably deconstructed the aid and intelligence network surrounding Ukraine. He quite literally halted aid in the lead up to a Russian offensive. He's eased sanctions. You can easily find these real and tangible examples and contrast them with previous administrations and his own past actions. He doesn't give two shits about supporting Ukraine with the exception of keeping a nominal threat around to line his pockets.
It's not "BlueAnon" (whatever you imagine that is) to open your eyes and call a spade a spade. Nobody has been a more consistent political winner in the last 20 years than Russia. Putin has talked and written about his geopolitical strategy, it's not a secret. Russia's online propaganda proliferation is honed to a fine point; and you don't even have to trust a filthy western government on that, just review the publicly available research yourself.
If you know anyone who lives/has lived in Eastern Europe they won't hesitate to tell you their experience with Russia as a neighbor. Your picture of a poor, resource limited country is 100% accurate and completely in line with their expansionist ambitions. It's why they've always maintained an outsized strategic focus on military strength and indirect subversion.
If you want to meaningfully engage with political reality outside of your echo chamber, you have to start by not dismissing everything you disagree with whole-cloth and realize that you are basically never exposed to online content with honest motives.
Look deeper and holistically at the platforms and people you engage with. For all of .ml's criticism of wikipedia I never see any mention of the fact that all authors and edits can be explored, or that different language sources can be influenced in opposing directions (for example, compare Chinese to English on any article). For all of its flaws, it's widely accessible to all actors and sees a ton of activity.
Conversely, why put so much faith in ProleWiki? The number of editors is tiny and their identities are entirely obscure. There are vanishingly few competing viewpoints to contrast and the density of citations is extremely sparse in comparison. Its closer in scale and content to a personal blog than an honest knowledge base.
I'd challenge you to read this leftist piece on Russia's strategy from way back in 2015 (well before the term "Russian interference" had hit the mainstream) and contrast it with your usual sources.
Trump doesn't care about Ukraine. The west doesn't care. What they care about is cornering Russia if possible, and carving Ukraine out for resources. The sanctions backfired, and drew Russia closer to the PRC, weakening US influence. NATO weaponry does not have the productive capacity to field a long-term war, these rollbacks are due to failure in strategy, not Putin having some mastermind level control over the west.
As for Wikipedia, on political topics it is dominated by pro-NATO viewpoints. Prolewiki has fewer editors, but better sourcing, and as a communist I know their methodology is also better. If you have a reason to doubt them other than their size, then let me know, otherwise you'd doubt any book simply for having even fewer authors.
You've given me no reason to trust you, nor to read that particular blog. I've read many already from contrasting viewpoints, it's unlikely one more is going to fundamentally flip my understanding.
What no reading theory does to a mf. Supporting Ukrainian fascists and spouting the same foreign policy as western governments. You libs only understand critical support when it's Joe Biden
Brother I took literally no stance on any domestic Ukrainian politics. "Critical support" is a horse shit excuse for not having the moral fiber to push back on your propoganda regimen. Somehow every whiff of a staged coup is an affront to human decency but foreign tanks rolling in and blowing up hospitals is complex and multilayered?
Crazy that we have every fascist regime lining up with Putin in a united opposition to... more fascists? With your favorite leftist talking heads in tow? It doesn't make sense at a fundamental level and it's trivial to trace the rhetoric back to who it most benefits. But sure, make a strawman and call me whatever you want if it helps ease the cognitive dissonance.
Are you ok?
I'd same the same thing if I didn't know what imperialism is
Crazy how all western governments enemies are fascist. What's hegemony btw
Who does benefit from the war in Ukraine?
You mean the little green men?
...what? Are you genuinely implying that everyone in the Donbass region is a disguised Russian soldier?
Are you seriously standing with Russian capital and oligarchs over the working people of Ukraine? Based on your above comments you don't seem to have a problem with the USSR using military occupation to stop satellite states from leaving their orbit. Surprise surprise, you suddenly oppose it when anyone other than Russia does it. In any event, nobody except Russia considers those referenda results even remotely credible. You're just another pro-imperial campist.
Extreme western chauvanism coming from you. I am standing with the people of the Donbass region, who saw the president they supported, Yanukovych, ousted in a western-backed coup justified by a Banderite false-flag massacre. I stand with the working class of Ukraine that increasingly opposes this war.
I stand against the Banderites that violently overtook the Ukrainian government and turned it into a far-right gangster state, where even Ukrainian allies are reporting about their immense corruption even during wartime. I oppose NATO, and the US Empire using Ukraine as a proxy to deal as much damage to Russia as possible while carving Ukraine out for resources.
The SSRs and SFSRs overwhelmingly supported remaining in the USSR. There were nationalist and fascist movements in some of these SSRs and SFSRs, including the Banderite OUN in Ukraine that collaborated with the Nazis, and I oppose those anticommunist, often antisemitic movements. At the same time, if a nation decides to secede due to a far-right nationalist group coming to power, and is therefore the target of state violence, then I support them.
It isn't just Russia that supports the Donbass region and their referenda, it's widespread across the global south. From Cuba to the Sahel States to Venezuela, Belarus, Iran, the PRC, India, Mali, the DPRK, Eritrea, etc. You have an extremely western viewpoint. I'm not a "pro-imperial campist," I'm a dues-paying communist, and I hold views dominant among communists and anti-imperialists.