Lemmy libs still think that the EU is going to step up and provide military support to Ukraine in any meaningful way and believe they're in opposition to US and Russia and will stand up for what is right and against "imperial aggression". Meanwhile the EU members are awarding right wing María Corina Machado a peace price in Oslo who is calling for the US to escalate a war in Venezuela.
13
partofthevoice @lemmy.zip - 16hr
What about EU threats to drop trillions in bonds if US support for Ukraine ends?
1
Cowbee [he/they] - 16hr
They'd accelerate their demotion from imperial vassals to periphery countries. That's it.
3
partofthevoice @lemmy.zip - 15hr
I think you’re ignoring the damage that would do to the US bond market?
1
Cowbee [he/they] - 15hr
The US empire is already dying, but it still has hard power. Europe has very little hard power and very little soft power, and as such their relevance on the world stage is vanishing. Cutting their ties with the US like that would result in essentially them getting rid of their support system.
4
🏴حمید پیام عباسی🏴 - 16hr
They can threaten all they want publicly, they won't do it. Then they have no leverage and their only other alternative is to divert all their spending into military defense and the Europeans way of life ends. The Russian threat isn't as big as the defense companies are claiming to manufacture consent for a profitable war.
3
Luci @lemmy.ca - 3day
By leaving Ukraine right? Thats the only logical conclusion I can think of.
Edit: holy hot heck did my block list just grow today.
2
eldavi - 2day
Edit: holy hot heck did my block list just grow today.
enjoy your echo chamber
28
Cowbee [he/they] - 3day
No? Why would Russia stop when it's winning?
20
lemmy_outta_here @lemmy.world - 3day
bit of a stretch to characterize this as winning. Russia faced off with a much weaker opponent and has been spinning its tires for years now. the russian economy is in shambles. the most effective russian play this entire war was putting trump back in the white house, but that fucker will be dead before midterms. look at his puffy face and purple hands. he is a walking corpse
-16
Cowbee [he/they] - 3day
Russia has been gradually taking more and more land and strategic footholds. This war is incredibly brutal, and the massive rise in FPV drones that are cheap and deadly forces slow movements, almost like a return to World War I style trench warfare. The Russian economy is still holding on strong, Europe is importing tons of gas indirectly from Russia through alternate channels, and Russia has spent the last decade trying to rely less on unreliable western trade partners. Further, there's no real evidence of Russia putting Trump in the White House, nor would Ukraine suddenly be winning had Harris been in office.
20
BrainInABox - 2day
This is Qanon tier nonsense
8
RiverRock - 3day
I don't understand what you think is logical about that
15
Luci @lemmy.ca - 3day
Because Russia has no reason to be invading neighbouring countries?
Idk just a thought. Not sure why we reward the aggressors. Remember that time the Russian backed separatists who totally weren’t just Russian military shot down that airliner?
-8
RiverRock - 3day
No reason
Oh, of course. This all just happened for no reason, contravening all laws of cause and effect. History began in February 2022.
Reward the aggressor
Who's rewarding anyone? They've won the war all by themselves. This is how war works, not some kindergarten where you can put countries in timeout. To think that acknowledging objective reality is somehow "rewarding" anyone is some real "punish the unbelievers" type shit.
18
ZeroHora - 2day
Real life is not marvel comic book that the "good guys" wins over the "bad guys".
Russia is winning and the logical conclusion is definitely not giving up at the finishing line and turn back. Do you know what logical means?
16
Luci @lemmy.ca - 2day
It’s not a comic book, it’s international relations. You know what would help russias relations? Getting the fuck out of Ukraine.
The logical conclusion is Russia fucks off and leaves other countries alone.
-11
m532 @lemmygrad.ml - 2day
And then usa enslaves and genocides them all. Very "logical" for the people in russia to do.
13
BrainInABox - 2day
"everyone is twelve" theory of politics continues to be validated, because that is a take a 12 year old would have
Consortium News, 2015: The Mess That Nuland MadeAssistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
Consortium News, 2023: The West’s Sabotage of Peace in UkraineFormer Israeli Prime Minister Bennett’s recent comments about getting his mediation efforts squashed in the early days of the war adds more to the growing pile of evidence that Western powers are intent on regime change in Russia.
George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev HeardDeclassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Zelensky was a comedian groomed by oligarchs. He played a president on TV and then ran for president on TV. This was planned out in advance. Zelensky has never been in control because he was an actor in way over his head, beholden to US comprador oligarchs, and his life is openly threatened by high-level Banderite fascists should he get out of line. And he’s quite wealthy now, an oligarch in his own right. He’s in no way a “servant of the people;” that’s an act played by an actor.
10
BrainInABox - 2day
I am genuinely shocked at liberals inability to understand the difference between is and ought
10
Luci @lemmy.ca - 1day
Expand on this plz
-7
m532 @lemmygrad.ml - 1day
Liberals seem to think that if enough people say (or think, idk), let's say, "100 octillion russians dead", that reality will change to bend to their will.
This only works in fiction written by liberals though.
8
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ - 1day
I suspect that one would have better luck explaining this to a squirrel on meth.
7
davel - 1day
Maybe she’ll add this to her list, “Reviews of my account.”
7
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ - 1day
🤣
6
ghost_laptop - 3day
Reality will not follow your delusions.
15
Luci @lemmy.ca - 3day
Oh so we’re okay with Russia being a bully?
-8
ghost_laptop - 3day
It doesn't matter if Russia is a bully or not. Marching off of Ukraine is not a logical conclusion, it will not happen.
16
Luci @lemmy.ca - 3day
Tell me why it isn’t logical
-14
Cowbee [he/they] - 3day
Because Russia is winning and has no reason to stop. Whether or not anyone is "okay" with Russia winning makes no difference on what the logical conclusion is, which is eventual Russian victory, as Russia is winning and Ukraine is losing even with NATO support. Russia stopping while they are ahead and the war is coming to a close is the least logical conclusion.
18
ghost_laptop - 2day
Jesus Christ I swear Westerners are fed through a tube.
17
Luci @lemmy.ca - 2day
Go on
-10
BrainInABox - 2day
Are you literally 12?
8
BrainInABox - 2day
Please, for the love of God, learn the difference between is and ought
11
Luci @lemmy.ca - 1day
Obviously I need you to expand in more detail here.
Russia is doing what it’s doing, regardless of what you, BiaB, or anyone else thinks it ought to be doing.
12
RiverRock - 3day
If China had stepped in to stop Israel's genocide, we would be having this exact conversation about China.
9
Luci @lemmy.ca - 3day
No it wouldn’t. Don’t be an idiot.
-9
RiverRock - 3day
We would absolutely be hearing rhetoric about "Antisemetic Chinese imperialism" blasted at us from every angle, quit being willfully naive.
14
Piperpiper1 - 1day
Yes we would, and your dumbass would be screaming about it at the top of your lungs because reddit told you.
Look at how you're approaching the Ukraine war. You've shown that you know nothing about what was occuring pre-Feb 2022 and are adamant that everyone else that's trying to tell you about it in good faith is a Russian asset. To you, history started on Feb 2022; and anyone that tries to tell you otherwise for the sake of "nuance" and "context" and other frilly fuckass bullshit is a Russian asset personally getting paid by Putin himself.
Not only do you know absolutely nothing, but you have zero intention to critically engage others because of your arrogance. You won't learn a single thing and you are adamant about not learning a single thing. That kind of behavior will absolutely not disappear in a hypothetical situation where China directly intervenes to end the genocide.
9
davel - 1day
Not only do you know absolutely nothing
Knowing nothing would an improvement, but instead she knows things that just ain’t so.
9
Luci @lemmy.ca - 1day
Right. Little green men never happened. Gotcha.
-7
m532 @lemmygrad.ml - 21hr
They only happen in badly made, unscientific fiction
3
davel - 1day
If Russia seems to be acting illogically to you, perhaps the problem isn’t with Russia but with your understanding of this war and Russia’s actual goals.
13
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ - 1day
calling what goes on inside that head of yours thinking is very generous
8
andicraft @lemmy.blahaj.zone - 23hr
my god yeah i knew there were a lot of tankies here but damn
-2
KimBongUn420 - 22hr
"Tankies* meaning in this case: people who understand the cause and nature of the conflict und would like for it to stop asap
4
Mangoholic - 2day
Here we go again westerpropaganda vs russian propaganda.
-3
RiverRock - 2day
15
Twongo [she/her] - 1day
another day, another banger
9
king_comrade @lemmy.world - 1day
Russia's 3 day operation continues to amaze me, they truly suck at war like their generals are worse than a 14 year old total war gamer. Everyday it's 'russia gonan win real soon totes promise!' and yet they continue to stall out over 55 year old blokes with out of date war gear. Pathetic truly, as sad as the Yankees wasting 20 years in the desert only to be defeated by goat herders lmao. These imperialist powers sure know how to waste their young men!
-3
subversive_dev - 1day
Remind me, which international alliance was putting its full military and financial support behind these "goat herders" during the failed US occupation?
7
king_comrade @lemmy.world - 20hr
Uhh did you mistake me? Fuck imperialism. American, Russian, Chinese, European, I don't care.
-4
Cowbee [he/they] - 19hr
China and Russia are not imperialist, they are closer to global south countries in their position with respect to imperialism as a global phenomenon. In order to fight the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, capital either seeks new markets, ie new inventions to flood with capital or geographically new markets, or it seeks to establish monopoly. The former allows for greater profits in absolute terms, the latter temporarily raises the rate of profit. The natural consequence is imperialism, where this is combined by having financial capital dominate the global south, super-exploiting labor for super-profits, and via unequal exchange, where technology and tech development is kept in the global north and thus monopoly prices are charged.
This is also why south-south trade is the path to escape underdevelopment, and is why China in particular has been a progressive force for the global south, as they don't withold tech knowledge but instead share it through cooperation and trade. China also doesn't charge the same monopoly prices for tech, which is why global south countries are seeing huge electrification, expansions in EVs, etc.
The west used to have a monopoly on cutting edge tech, they witheld the technology used for creating firearms from African countries for hundreds of years while selectively trading firearms in limited quantities for huge amounts of slaves, as an example. The west forces the global south to rely on them, and forces them into remaining at lower levels of industrial development and refinement. It's also why countries like the Sahel States are working towards cutting unrefined gold exports and upping refined gold exports, ie moving from unfinished raw materials into more finished goods or ancillary materials, and why porkie is terrified of them.
It isn't that goods further along in the commodity production process have more valuable labor time at the higher end, it's that the upper end of the production chain is easier to keep a tech and skill monopoly on. This is what liberals mean by "higher value add" industries, made more naked through Marxist analysis.
5
RiverRock - 24hr
Would you be willing to put money on the outcome of this war?
5
king_comrade @lemmy.world - 20hr
Well, I am a gambling man, how much we talking? Cos a penny bet reckons it's a Russian loss but would I go all in? Not yet...
-1
Cowbee [he/they] - 19hr
Before you start making bets, what do you count as a Russian victory? It's almost certainly going to end favorably to Russia, so I'm not sure why you'd take this bet.
4
king_comrade @lemmy.world - 19hr
Initial goal was to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine and also to 'protect the people of Luhansk and Donetsk' right? So anything short of that is sort of a loss. I don't think Putin can get all of that he's going to have to compromise.
0
Cowbee [he/they] - 18hr
Russia wants the four oblasts, which they have been accelerating their advance in in the last few months. Cheap and deadly FPV drones force slow movement in general, but in the last few months strings of Kiev-held strongholds are falling left and right. Ukraine can't field the war much longer either, and the war is becoming increasingly unpopular. What's likely is that the four oblasts go to Russia, Kiev is forced into NATO neutrality, and their millitary is severely crippled. That's absolutely a Russian victory.
Which of these do you think Russia will have to compromise on, and why would you consider the compromise to be a loss?
4
RiverRock - 19hr
A thousand bucks.
2
Cowbee [he/they] - 19hr
The "3 day war" idea was not an official millitary or government statement, Lukashenko and an RT editor both said it and the west has been using it as a way to obscure the fact that Russia has been steadily achieving its actually stated goals. I know you've read Lenin, have you read Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism? The Russian Federation is governed by nationalists, not finance capital, and Russia doesn't have a stake in the global financial monopoly. It's the west that has that. Russia doesn't really meet the Marxist understanding of imperialism, nor is it acting how we would expect imperialist powers to act.
5
मुक्त - 1day
America didn't lose that many lives in AfPak. I believe for years there was just one reported casualty, and that too in friendly fire.
2
king_comrade @lemmy.world - 20hr
They still lost.
1
postcapitalism @lemmy.today - 3day
Symping for autocrats are we? How very Marxist-Leninist
Edit: * /s *
-9
Cowbee [he/they] - 3day
Reporting on what Putin has said about the state of the war is not "simping" for anyone, nor is Marxism-Leninism about "simping" for anyone.
19
postcapitalism @lemmy.today - 3day
Cowbee. I appreciate some of your takes on Marxism, but disagree frequently with your frame of reference on state power in the global field.
I view the war with Ukraine as one of Russo imperialism in response to Western imperialism. Indeed the USSR itself had many imperialist tendencies under a unified Asiatic / Slavic Soviet even as did Western and Asian counterparts post WW2
The irony being I am more allied to Trotsky or Luxemburg’s take. Which no doubt wouldn’t receive fair purchase in ML group. Forgive me for not directly referencing War and International - as it meanders but hits many themes relevant to Russia/Ukraine conflict
That being said to summarize my view: wars of conquest as a tool for furthering state capital / geopolitical interests shouldn’t be supported by Marxists, and posting the rationalization of an autocrat reads as support to me.
-3
Cowbee [he/they] - 3day
If Russia was actually imperialist and the Russo-Ukrainian war an inter-imperialist conflict, then I'd agree with you, but Russia isn't imperialist (and certainly not the USSR). In the current era, the US Empire is the hegemon, and its vassals the beneficiaries of imperialism. Russia is governed by nationalists who do not have a stake in the global imperialist system, and as such are forced into south-south trade and south-south alliances. Further, there is a rising communist movement within Russia that is growing year over year that stands to return Russia to socialism.
Ukraine is used somewhat similarly as how Israel is used by the US Empire; as millitary bases. The far-right Banderites in Kiev have power currently, and are doing their job of de-communization. The Donbass region seceded, and the ensuing war between Donetsk/Luhansk and Kiev is what is sparking Russian intervention. Russia is not doing this in pursuit of new neocolonies to exploit, nor does it have any. Russia lacks the financial capital as well as a spot in the global financial monopoly by which imperialism functions that the west has.
A NATO victory over Russia would result in ethnic cleansing in the Donbass region, serious destabilization in a significant anti-US force, and a strong ally for socialist countries and anyone trying to break away from the IMF.
Further, there is a rising communist movement within Russia that is growing year over year that stands to return Russia to socialism.
And, what? What difference does it make? France had a decent communist movement, right? They were still imperialists.
0
Cowbee [he/they] - 3day
Russia doesn't have a stake in the world imperialist system, France does and has for centuries. If France were to lose in a war against the global south, there would be a huge blow to their continued domination and subjugation of African countries. The fact that Russia has a rising communist movement is just a bonus tacked onto the end, it isn't an indication of the country being imperialist or not. In fact, the nationalists in charge of Russia are caught between needing to appease the public yearning more and more for socialism and their own interests in perpetuating their capitalist system.
Does that make sense?
14
postcapitalism @lemmy.today - 2day
Cowbee, I disagree almost entirely with what you posted. But with respect for you clearly articulating your position I will share my response.
To your “But Russia is not imperialist” , please reflect on the following and to what extent you must stretch a rationalization:
First and Second Chechen Wars (1994, 2000)
Puppet Leader in Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko (1996)
Puppet leader in Ukraine Victor Yanukovych (2010)
Georgian War (2008)
Annexation of Crimea (2014)
Role in Syria conflict (2000 onwards)
Role in African dictatorships in Burma Faso and Niger (2010s- present)
… global south / US bad too / old Soviet vassal states must kneel ect… I get it. But the above conflicts are evidence of state capitalism exerting itself militarily for geopolitical and economic aims
I doubt this will influence you much as you are pretty invested in your world view. But from my vantage point and reading of theory (likely some overlap if you are ML) - you are wrong *respectfully
-10
cfgaussian @lemmygrad.ml - 2day
First and Second Chechen Wars
Purely defensive, internal conflicts on internationally recognized Russian territory against CIA backed jihadist terrorists who butchered civilians and committed heinous acts of terrorism such as taking an entire school hostage and murdering hundreds of children.
Puppet Leader in Belarus Alexander Lukashenko
Lukashenko has been the leader of Belarus longer than Putin has been president. Belarus is in a Union State with Russia, and still has more autonomy from Russia than the average EU state has from Brussels.
Puppet leader in Ukraine Victor Yanukovych
He was the furthest thing from a puppet. If anything he was Western-leaning, but trying to keep Ukraine neutral. His one unforgivable crime in the eyes of the West was rejecting a terrible EU trade deal that would have ruined Ukraine's economy (and did) in favor of an objectively much better one from Russia.
Georgian War
Literally even the EU investigation into that conflict admitted that Georgia started it. Emboldened by believing they had NATO backing, the US puppet president, installed in a color revolution, attacked the region of South Ossetia which was under the protection of Russian peacekeepers.
Annexation of Crimea
The people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted in a referendum to rejoin Russia in response to the fascist, Western-orchestrated Maidan coup.
The majority ethnic Russian population of Crimea did not want the same brutal neo-nazi terror militias that were terrorizing ethnic Russian regions across the rest of Ukraine to come to them, nor did they want to be forced to abide by the russophobic laws passed by the illegally installed Maidan regime, which Crimea, like the Donbass, did not recognize as legitimate.
Russia's actions in Crimea were a response to a crisis provoked by Western intervention and the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government.
Role in Syria conflict
Russia co-operated with the legitimate Syrian government against a brutal Zionist/US armed and funded Al Qaeda/ISIS terrorist insurgency.
Role in African dictatorships in Burma Faso and Niger
Same thing. They are co-operating with the official government of those countries in counter-terrorist operations against Western backed jihadist terrorists.
None of this constitutes imperialism. In fact almost all of these are examples of Russia pushing back against Western imperialist aggression, encroachment and proxies.
17
Cowbee [he/they] - 2day
Comrade cfgaussian already answered perfectly here. Essentially, you mix in defensive wars with allyships with other countries, and claim the defensive wars are for imperialism and the allyships "puppetry." The Sahel States are progressive, and are allied with Russia in their national liberation from France and western imperialism.
I am a Marxist-Leninist, yes. Imperialism needs to be analyzed primarily by the definition of imperialism Lenin gives, not on whether or not a country interacts with others. In most of these examples, such as the Sahel States, Russia is working against imperialism.
Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism by which finance capital and world monopoly are dominant. Russia does not have this. Russia is currently under the control of nationalists, not finance capital, and it is the west that has that global financial monopoly.
Your error is in both erasing Lenin's analysis of imperialism and viewing any kind of interaction Russia has as inherently imperialist working backwards from there. To use your rhetoric, I suggest you reflect first on what imperialism is, why we define it as such and how it operates, and consider why Marxist-Leninists therefore have the understanding of the Russian Federation that we do.
Imperialism is defined as the monopoly stage of finance capital.
Russian economy is dominated by the state and oligarchs, not by independent finance capital. It's territorial expansion while being an regional historical imperialist action is defensive and self limiting and driven mostly by nationalism and security concerns.
Your list provides critical empirical evidence for a dialectical analysis but requires contextualization to avoid oversimplification. See response from comrade @cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
10
Frozentea725 @feddit.uk - 3day
😂 how's that 3 day special military operation going.
-9
NimaMag - 3day
The plan never was '3 days', that was an estimate that came from U.S General Mark Milley.
25
huf [he/him] - 3day
sssh, the 3 day thing has become part of the mythology of this clusterfuck for westerners, they'll insist it's real forever
26
NimaMag - 3day
Now ain't that the truth.
18
freagle @lemmygrad.ml - 3day
Well, Lukashenko also said it, and the editor of RT said. But yes.
The other evidence they use is the feint that was sent directly at Kiev. They think the feint was a real genuine attempt to capture the capital city, and then from there take all the evidence that it was a feint and spin it into bad planning. So specifically, if you send a feint, and you're committed to that entire allocation of soldiers being wiped out, you don't send them in with supplies to last for a long slog - you send them in ultra light on a suicide mission. And that's essentially what the deployment to Kiev was, a group with an ultralight kit heading straight for Kiev to draw out forces and create confusion in the early days of the war. That feint was destroyed and then when they realized it was feint they spun it hard into "look at these fools who thought they could end this thing in three days" basically as a way of avoiding the obvious conclusion that they wasted time dealing with a trick.
It would be like if someone sent a feint filled with woodland creatures and animated scarecrows and after you waste strategically valuable time dealing with them you spend the rest of the war saying "this opponent is so dumb they thought they could win with scarecrows" when the reality is that you got tricked and the feint did exactly what it was intended to do.
14
Luci @lemmy.ca - 3day
I guess a broken clock is right twice a day eh?
-4
HikingVet @lemmy.ca - 2day
Then why did they state that at the beginning?
-7
Cowbee [he/they] - 2day
Lukashenko and the editor of RT said it, not the Russian government nor millitary.
10
BrainInABox - 2day
They didn't
8
jack [he/him, comrade/them] - 3day
is your position that since day 4 this has been a Ukrainian victory?
NimdaQA in worldnews
Russia to Bring Special Military Operation to Its Logical Conclusion – Putin
https://sputnikglobe.com/20251209/russia-to-bring-special-military-operation-to-its-logical-conclusion--putin-1123266141.htmlLemmy libs still think that the EU is going to step up and provide military support to Ukraine in any meaningful way and believe they're in opposition to US and Russia and will stand up for what is right and against "imperial aggression". Meanwhile the EU members are awarding right wing María Corina Machado a peace price in Oslo who is calling for the US to escalate a war in Venezuela.
What about EU threats to drop trillions in bonds if US support for Ukraine ends?
They'd accelerate their demotion from imperial vassals to periphery countries. That's it.
I think you’re ignoring the damage that would do to the US bond market?
The US empire is already dying, but it still has hard power. Europe has very little hard power and very little soft power, and as such their relevance on the world stage is vanishing. Cutting their ties with the US like that would result in essentially them getting rid of their support system.
They can threaten all they want publicly, they won't do it. Then they have no leverage and their only other alternative is to divert all their spending into military defense and the Europeans way of life ends. The Russian threat isn't as big as the defense companies are claiming to manufacture consent for a profitable war.
By leaving Ukraine right? Thats the only logical conclusion I can think of.
Edit: holy hot heck did my block list just grow today.
enjoy your echo chamber
No? Why would Russia stop when it's winning?
bit of a stretch to characterize this as winning. Russia faced off with a much weaker opponent and has been spinning its tires for years now. the russian economy is in shambles. the most effective russian play this entire war was putting trump back in the white house, but that fucker will be dead before midterms. look at his puffy face and purple hands. he is a walking corpse
Russia has been gradually taking more and more land and strategic footholds. This war is incredibly brutal, and the massive rise in FPV drones that are cheap and deadly forces slow movements, almost like a return to World War I style trench warfare. The Russian economy is still holding on strong, Europe is importing tons of gas indirectly from Russia through alternate channels, and Russia has spent the last decade trying to rely less on unreliable western trade partners. Further, there's no real evidence of Russia putting Trump in the White House, nor would Ukraine suddenly be winning had Harris been in office.
This is Qanon tier nonsense
I don't understand what you think is logical about that
Because Russia has no reason to be invading neighbouring countries?
Idk just a thought. Not sure why we reward the aggressors. Remember that time the Russian backed separatists who totally weren’t just Russian military shot down that airliner?
Oh, of course. This all just happened for no reason, contravening all laws of cause and effect. History began in February 2022.
Who's rewarding anyone? They've won the war all by themselves. This is how war works, not some kindergarten where you can put countries in timeout. To think that acknowledging objective reality is somehow "rewarding" anyone is some real "punish the unbelievers" type shit.
Real life is not marvel comic book that the "good guys" wins over the "bad guys".
Russia is winning and the logical conclusion is definitely not giving up at the finishing line and turn back. Do you know what logical means?
It’s not a comic book, it’s international relations. You know what would help russias relations? Getting the fuck out of Ukraine.
The logical conclusion is Russia fucks off and leaves other countries alone.
And then usa enslaves and genocides them all. Very "logical" for the people in russia to do.
"everyone is twelve" theory of politics continues to be validated, because that is a take a 12 year old would have
Please expand on what you mean by this
Evergreen Caitlin Johnstone article
you keep using this word 'logical' I don't think it means what you think it means
👍
Previously:
Previously:
I am genuinely shocked at liberals inability to understand the difference between is and ought
Expand on this plz
Liberals seem to think that if enough people say (or think, idk), let's say, "100 octillion russians dead", that reality will change to bend to their will.
This only works in fiction written by liberals though.
I suspect that one would have better luck explaining this to a squirrel on meth.
Maybe she’ll add this to her list, “Reviews of my account.”
🤣
Reality will not follow your delusions.
Oh so we’re okay with Russia being a bully?
It doesn't matter if Russia is a bully or not. Marching off of Ukraine is not a logical conclusion, it will not happen.
Tell me why it isn’t logical
Because Russia is winning and has no reason to stop. Whether or not anyone is "okay" with Russia winning makes no difference on what the logical conclusion is, which is eventual Russian victory, as Russia is winning and Ukraine is losing even with NATO support. Russia stopping while they are ahead and the war is coming to a close is the least logical conclusion.
Jesus Christ I swear Westerners are fed through a tube.
Go on
Are you literally 12?
Please, for the love of God, learn the difference between is and ought
Obviously I need you to expand in more detail here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
Russia is doing what it’s doing, regardless of what you, BiaB, or anyone else thinks it ought to be doing.
If China had stepped in to stop Israel's genocide, we would be having this exact conversation about China.
No it wouldn’t. Don’t be an idiot.
We would absolutely be hearing rhetoric about "Antisemetic Chinese imperialism" blasted at us from every angle, quit being willfully naive.
Yes we would, and your dumbass would be screaming about it at the top of your lungs because reddit told you.
Look at how you're approaching the Ukraine war. You've shown that you know nothing about what was occuring pre-Feb 2022 and are adamant that everyone else that's trying to tell you about it in good faith is a Russian asset. To you, history started on Feb 2022; and anyone that tries to tell you otherwise for the sake of "nuance" and "context" and other frilly fuckass bullshit is a Russian asset personally getting paid by Putin himself.
Not only do you know absolutely nothing, but you have zero intention to critically engage others because of your arrogance. You won't learn a single thing and you are adamant about not learning a single thing. That kind of behavior will absolutely not disappear in a hypothetical situation where China directly intervenes to end the genocide.
Knowing nothing would an improvement, but instead she knows things that just ain’t so.
Right. Little green men never happened. Gotcha.
They only happen in badly made, unscientific fiction
If Russia seems to be acting illogically to you, perhaps the problem isn’t with Russia but with your understanding of this war and Russia’s actual goals.
calling what goes on inside that head of yours thinking is very generous
my god yeah i knew there were a lot of tankies here but damn
"Tankies* meaning in this case: people who understand the cause and nature of the conflict und would like for it to stop asap
Here we go again westerpropaganda vs russian propaganda.
another day, another banger
Russia's 3 day operation continues to amaze me, they truly suck at war like their generals are worse than a 14 year old total war gamer. Everyday it's 'russia gonan win real soon totes promise!' and yet they continue to stall out over 55 year old blokes with out of date war gear. Pathetic truly, as sad as the Yankees wasting 20 years in the desert only to be defeated by goat herders lmao. These imperialist powers sure know how to waste their young men!
Remind me, which international alliance was putting its full military and financial support behind these "goat herders" during the failed US occupation?
Uhh did you mistake me? Fuck imperialism. American, Russian, Chinese, European, I don't care.
China and Russia are not imperialist, they are closer to global south countries in their position with respect to imperialism as a global phenomenon. In order to fight the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, capital either seeks new markets, ie new inventions to flood with capital or geographically new markets, or it seeks to establish monopoly. The former allows for greater profits in absolute terms, the latter temporarily raises the rate of profit. The natural consequence is imperialism, where this is combined by having financial capital dominate the global south, super-exploiting labor for super-profits, and via unequal exchange, where technology and tech development is kept in the global north and thus monopoly prices are charged.
This is also why south-south trade is the path to escape underdevelopment, and is why China in particular has been a progressive force for the global south, as they don't withold tech knowledge but instead share it through cooperation and trade. China also doesn't charge the same monopoly prices for tech, which is why global south countries are seeing huge electrification, expansions in EVs, etc.
The west used to have a monopoly on cutting edge tech, they witheld the technology used for creating firearms from African countries for hundreds of years while selectively trading firearms in limited quantities for huge amounts of slaves, as an example. The west forces the global south to rely on them, and forces them into remaining at lower levels of industrial development and refinement. It's also why countries like the Sahel States are working towards cutting unrefined gold exports and upping refined gold exports, ie moving from unfinished raw materials into more finished goods or ancillary materials, and why porkie is terrified of them.
It isn't that goods further along in the commodity production process have more valuable labor time at the higher end, it's that the upper end of the production chain is easier to keep a tech and skill monopoly on. This is what liberals mean by "higher value add" industries, made more naked through Marxist analysis.
Would you be willing to put money on the outcome of this war?
Well, I am a gambling man, how much we talking? Cos a penny bet reckons it's a Russian loss but would I go all in? Not yet...
Before you start making bets, what do you count as a Russian victory? It's almost certainly going to end favorably to Russia, so I'm not sure why you'd take this bet.
Initial goal was to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine and also to 'protect the people of Luhansk and Donetsk' right? So anything short of that is sort of a loss. I don't think Putin can get all of that he's going to have to compromise.
Russia wants the four oblasts, which they have been accelerating their advance in in the last few months. Cheap and deadly FPV drones force slow movement in general, but in the last few months strings of Kiev-held strongholds are falling left and right. Ukraine can't field the war much longer either, and the war is becoming increasingly unpopular. What's likely is that the four oblasts go to Russia, Kiev is forced into NATO neutrality, and their millitary is severely crippled. That's absolutely a Russian victory.
Which of these do you think Russia will have to compromise on, and why would you consider the compromise to be a loss?
A thousand bucks.
The "3 day war" idea was not an official millitary or government statement, Lukashenko and an RT editor both said it and the west has been using it as a way to obscure the fact that Russia has been steadily achieving its actually stated goals. I know you've read Lenin, have you read Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism? The Russian Federation is governed by nationalists, not finance capital, and Russia doesn't have a stake in the global financial monopoly. It's the west that has that. Russia doesn't really meet the Marxist understanding of imperialism, nor is it acting how we would expect imperialist powers to act.
America didn't lose that many lives in AfPak. I believe for years there was just one reported casualty, and that too in friendly fire.
They still lost.
Symping for autocrats are we? How very Marxist-Leninist Edit: * /s *
Reporting on what Putin has said about the state of the war is not "simping" for anyone, nor is Marxism-Leninism about "simping" for anyone.
Cowbee. I appreciate some of your takes on Marxism, but disagree frequently with your frame of reference on state power in the global field.
I view the war with Ukraine as one of Russo imperialism in response to Western imperialism. Indeed the USSR itself had many imperialist tendencies under a unified Asiatic / Slavic Soviet even as did Western and Asian counterparts post WW2
The irony being I am more allied to Trotsky or Luxemburg’s take. Which no doubt wouldn’t receive fair purchase in ML group. Forgive me for not directly referencing War and International - as it meanders but hits many themes relevant to Russia/Ukraine conflict
That being said to summarize my view: wars of conquest as a tool for furthering state capital / geopolitical interests shouldn’t be supported by Marxists, and posting the rationalization of an autocrat reads as support to me.
If Russia was actually imperialist and the Russo-Ukrainian war an inter-imperialist conflict, then I'd agree with you, but Russia isn't imperialist (and certainly not the USSR). In the current era, the US Empire is the hegemon, and its vassals the beneficiaries of imperialism. Russia is governed by nationalists who do not have a stake in the global imperialist system, and as such are forced into south-south trade and south-south alliances. Further, there is a rising communist movement within Russia that is growing year over year that stands to return Russia to socialism.
Ukraine is used somewhat similarly as how Israel is used by the US Empire; as millitary bases. The far-right Banderites in Kiev have power currently, and are doing their job of de-communization. The Donbass region seceded, and the ensuing war between Donetsk/Luhansk and Kiev is what is sparking Russian intervention. Russia is not doing this in pursuit of new neocolonies to exploit, nor does it have any. Russia lacks the financial capital as well as a spot in the global financial monopoly by which imperialism functions that the west has.
A NATO victory over Russia would result in ethnic cleansing in the Donbass region, serious destabilization in a significant anti-US force, and a strong ally for socialist countries and anyone trying to break away from the IMF.
And, what? What difference does it make? France had a decent communist movement, right? They were still imperialists.
Russia doesn't have a stake in the world imperialist system, France does and has for centuries. If France were to lose in a war against the global south, there would be a huge blow to their continued domination and subjugation of African countries. The fact that Russia has a rising communist movement is just a bonus tacked onto the end, it isn't an indication of the country being imperialist or not. In fact, the nationalists in charge of Russia are caught between needing to appease the public yearning more and more for socialism and their own interests in perpetuating their capitalist system.
Does that make sense?
Cowbee, I disagree almost entirely with what you posted. But with respect for you clearly articulating your position I will share my response.
To your “But Russia is not imperialist” , please reflect on the following and to what extent you must stretch a rationalization:
First and Second Chechen Wars (1994, 2000) Puppet Leader in Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko (1996) Puppet leader in Ukraine Victor Yanukovych (2010) Georgian War (2008) Annexation of Crimea (2014) Role in Syria conflict (2000 onwards) Role in African dictatorships in Burma Faso and Niger (2010s- present)
… global south / US bad too / old Soviet vassal states must kneel ect… I get it. But the above conflicts are evidence of state capitalism exerting itself militarily for geopolitical and economic aims
I doubt this will influence you much as you are pretty invested in your world view. But from my vantage point and reading of theory (likely some overlap if you are ML) - you are wrong *respectfully
Purely defensive, internal conflicts on internationally recognized Russian territory against CIA backed jihadist terrorists who butchered civilians and committed heinous acts of terrorism such as taking an entire school hostage and murdering hundreds of children.
Lukashenko has been the leader of Belarus longer than Putin has been president. Belarus is in a Union State with Russia, and still has more autonomy from Russia than the average EU state has from Brussels.
He was the furthest thing from a puppet. If anything he was Western-leaning, but trying to keep Ukraine neutral. His one unforgivable crime in the eyes of the West was rejecting a terrible EU trade deal that would have ruined Ukraine's economy (and did) in favor of an objectively much better one from Russia.
Literally even the EU investigation into that conflict admitted that Georgia started it. Emboldened by believing they had NATO backing, the US puppet president, installed in a color revolution, attacked the region of South Ossetia which was under the protection of Russian peacekeepers.
The people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted in a referendum to rejoin Russia in response to the fascist, Western-orchestrated Maidan coup.
The majority ethnic Russian population of Crimea did not want the same brutal neo-nazi terror militias that were terrorizing ethnic Russian regions across the rest of Ukraine to come to them, nor did they want to be forced to abide by the russophobic laws passed by the illegally installed Maidan regime, which Crimea, like the Donbass, did not recognize as legitimate.
Russia's actions in Crimea were a response to a crisis provoked by Western intervention and the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government.
Russia co-operated with the legitimate Syrian government against a brutal Zionist/US armed and funded Al Qaeda/ISIS terrorist insurgency.
Same thing. They are co-operating with the official government of those countries in counter-terrorist operations against Western backed jihadist terrorists.
None of this constitutes imperialism. In fact almost all of these are examples of Russia pushing back against Western imperialist aggression, encroachment and proxies.
Comrade cfgaussian already answered perfectly here. Essentially, you mix in defensive wars with allyships with other countries, and claim the defensive wars are for imperialism and the allyships "puppetry." The Sahel States are progressive, and are allied with Russia in their national liberation from France and western imperialism.
I am a Marxist-Leninist, yes. Imperialism needs to be analyzed primarily by the definition of imperialism Lenin gives, not on whether or not a country interacts with others. In most of these examples, such as the Sahel States, Russia is working against imperialism.
Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism by which finance capital and world monopoly are dominant. Russia does not have this. Russia is currently under the control of nationalists, not finance capital, and it is the west that has that global financial monopoly.
Your error is in both erasing Lenin's analysis of imperialism and viewing any kind of interaction Russia has as inherently imperialist working backwards from there. To use your rhetoric, I suggest you reflect first on what imperialism is, why we define it as such and how it operates, and consider why Marxist-Leninists therefore have the understanding of the Russian Federation that we do.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm#ch10
Imperialism is defined as the monopoly stage of finance capital.
Russian economy is dominated by the state and oligarchs, not by independent finance capital. It's territorial expansion while being an regional historical imperialist action is defensive and self limiting and driven mostly by nationalism and security concerns.
Your list provides critical empirical evidence for a dialectical analysis but requires contextualization to avoid oversimplification. See response from comrade @cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
😂 how's that 3 day special military operation going.
The plan never was '3 days', that was an estimate that came from U.S General Mark Milley.
sssh, the 3 day thing has become part of the mythology of this clusterfuck for westerners, they'll insist it's real forever
Now ain't that the truth.
Well, Lukashenko also said it, and the editor of RT said. But yes.
The other evidence they use is the feint that was sent directly at Kiev. They think the feint was a real genuine attempt to capture the capital city, and then from there take all the evidence that it was a feint and spin it into bad planning. So specifically, if you send a feint, and you're committed to that entire allocation of soldiers being wiped out, you don't send them in with supplies to last for a long slog - you send them in ultra light on a suicide mission. And that's essentially what the deployment to Kiev was, a group with an ultralight kit heading straight for Kiev to draw out forces and create confusion in the early days of the war. That feint was destroyed and then when they realized it was feint they spun it hard into "look at these fools who thought they could end this thing in three days" basically as a way of avoiding the obvious conclusion that they wasted time dealing with a trick.
It would be like if someone sent a feint filled with woodland creatures and animated scarecrows and after you waste strategically valuable time dealing with them you spend the rest of the war saying "this opponent is so dumb they thought they could win with scarecrows" when the reality is that you got tricked and the feint did exactly what it was intended to do.
I guess a broken clock is right twice a day eh?
Then why did they state that at the beginning?
Lukashenko and the editor of RT said it, not the Russian government nor millitary.
They didn't
is your position that since day 4 this has been a Ukrainian victory?
What country is Mariupol in?