Being skeptical of US interests doesn't equal supporting Russia
Yeah but I’ve been seeing some leftists (mainly patsocs) saying that Russia is in the right
War is bad, sure, but when a foreign military alliance specifically created to obliterate your country keeps rolling up closer and closer to your borders... eventually something is going to happen.
Nato does have some responsibility for the war, but it was Russia that invaded.
HAHA...
Okay, so, if you want. There is a book that the hexbear book club read not too long ago called "Russia Without Putin". You might want to find a copy (there are several places where you can find an online one free) that might help you out some.
Basically, what you've said, is that if a person is punching you constantly and talking about coming to your home and killing your dog, if you finally get fed up and do something about it then you are worse than the person who was threatening things you care about and attacking you.
If not worse, the certified westoid leftist stance of “just as bad”
lol I read that book. It’s from a Social Democrat publishing house. No mention of the existence of the KPRF In the entire thing. Navalny gets a lot of discussion though. It’s still worth a read, but understand that it is an anticommunist publication. This is the anarchism community though so maybe y’all don’t care.
"some" lol.
Russia has responsibility as far as the actual action goes but this is a war Nato created. This is the world and conflcit Nato and the US chose to have and this is what they did with their complete unipolarity in the 90s and 00s
leftists
patsocs
Think I found ur problem :fash-bash:
I feel about the same way. We don't need to choose either side of this conflict, and least of all the side with actual fucking nazis.
DPRK supports Russia’s operation. Venezuela supports Russia’s operation. Syria supports Russia’s operation. China, Cuba, Iran all have further strengthened ties with Russia and refused to condemn them.
Kind of strange how all anti-imperialist and AES states are pretty clear on their position on this, but western left continue their centuries long tradition of moral purity and fence sitting
Operation… when Russia uses the rhetoric that the us uses that’s somehow trustworthy is it?
Oh wow the US said “weapon” and the Russians also said “weapon”. They are the same
Nice strawman. What I was referring to is that the us also cloaks its invasions in “it’s an antiterrorist operation”
It is, in fact, an anti-Nazi and anti-NATO operation.
See, the American empire was lying when they said they were fighting terrorists. They created ISIS and Al Qaeda and are the number one sponsor of terrorism globally. It was all bullshit. They never intended to end terror, they always intended to spread it.
Whereas Syria, Iran and Russia have actually destroyed ISIS and effectively ended terrorism in Syria.
So when Russia and the anti-imperialist bloc say they are going to do something, they have proven that they mean it and aren’t full of BS like the west
Wow we hadn't had threads like these in a while, was missing them lately
Destroying a forward operating base and fascist coup of the world empire is anti-imperialist. I support invading and liberating Taiwan, Israel, South Korea, Northern Ireland, Kosovo and others too.
Wrong. They are in an earlier stage of capitalism than neoliberalism
Wrong. A pre-imperialist capitalist nation is not worse than a more developed imperialist capitalist nation.
So you think that capitalist Libya under Gaddafi was even worse than the neoliberal US empire?
TIL Britain during the times of the East India Trading Company was less imperialist than any neoliberal nation now.
The British empire was an advanced imperialist power relative to the rest of the world at the time. Hence why it was bad.
Russia is not an advanced imperialist power relative to the unipolar hegemony of anglo-American dominance. They are a colonized anti-imperialist regional power, backed into being anti-imperialist by necessity.
I mean, having one empire hasn't worked out too well for us the last 30 years. But Russia isn't exactly trying to make an empire either, they're protecting their border by using Donetsk and Lugansk as a buffer zone. In doing so, they're directly fucking with the US and NATO.
Why have they penetrated further into Ukraine than just the Donbas tho?
In the south, to secure a warm water port and restore crimea's fresh water supply. Elsewhere, because they're trying to force Ukraine to come to the bargaining table (or surrender, but that still seems unlikely). They could withdraw all their troops from the rest of the country once the war is over in return for Ukraine signing a neutrality agreement.
Edit: I should add that this is a guess, but I think these are Putins main goals.
How do you think war works? You just shoot a couple of them and the call it a day? Did Stalin stop at the borders of the USSR or did the Red Army march to Berlin to topple the government of the enemy?
Sure sounds an awful lot like what an imperialist who wants to stay in power would say
asicaly no leftist said "Russia should invade" before it happened. But it happened and now supporting the defeat of your own imperialist bloc (the largest and worse one) aka Nato/US etc and also supporting the way the war ends the fastest (Russian victory and immediate Ukraine surrender negotiations ) are legit positions both from a revolutionary defeatist mindset and from a pragmatic one. Also for various geopolitical reasons Russia collapsing, losing or coming out much weaker of this is bad news for actual AES (even the uncontroversial ones like Cuba and Bolivia) and for any chances new ones would have
small bloc is taking on the big bloc by proxy, small bloc is not principled but are assumed to be weakening the more powerful bloc
i mean itd be nice if this somehow precipitated the fall of US hegemony but the attendant risk of nuclear annihilation is not very pog and a whole bunch of innocent people got/are gonna get killed
Some see it as a way of "getting back" at the United States and NATO. It's similar to how some countries in the global south supported Japan out of anti-imperialism during wwII because they saw them as the only non-Western country giving the West a taste of their own medicine.
It’s not moralist or about “getting back” for some grievance.
It’s a pragmatic realist strategy of anti-imperialism to destroy the empire. Y’all wanna be anti-imperialists then balk when the colonized start destroying the empire
Invading Ukraine (which is what we’re talking about here) is not the colonised destroying the empire, it’s a country trying to build an empire.
In answer to your question, OP, I'm pulling this out my ass somewhat so take it with a handful of salt: it's because this time the Russian-aligned or otherwise non-NATO aligned nations get to see one of "their guys" do a hecking cool anti-
terrorismnazi military operation unilaterally, just like when the "free world" cheered on the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan on the basis of combating the bad terrorism. The shoe's on the other foot now, and they can root for their superpower doing the bullying instead of watching the US do it.No it’s because Ukraine’s current government is fascist and NATO installed, and destroying outposts of empire is anti-imperialist by definition
Yeah, ok, the right-wing nationalist, capitalist, Russia United party, of which Putin is the leader, who, in a 40+ minute speech acting as de facto declaration of war called the Bolsheviks a bunch of misguided morons for allowing Ukraine to have territory of its own and categorically rejected communism is actually a misunderstood anti-imperialist project.
Nobody's saying that, theyre saying that shitty states are fully capable of accidentally doing good things for selfish reasons.
What's the accidental good thing here, exactly? Getting several thousand civilians killed? Displacing countless more? Creating a new refugee crisis? Plunging the global south into a grain and oil shortage?
Do you actually believe the line about denazification, and can you provide a meaningful roadmap as to how Russia could possibly achieve this?
Owning NATO is all cool and good, but this wasn't the way. In addition to what I've already mentioned, this is only going to create and embolden even more Nazi weirdos not just in Ukraine, but all over the west, and the sudden influx of weaponry supplied by the west that has now gone to God knows where will be implemented in future stochastic terrorism, the blowback of which will not be felt for, let's say, another 5-10 years.
Let me be clear, it's 100% NATO's fault for falsely goading Ukraine into thinking they'd have their backs and refusing to make even the slightest concession against Russia's concerns, but to call their bluff and simultaneously confirm and affirm the very ostensible reason for NATO's existence is the stupidest fucking thing I could ever think of, and this dipshit game has cost the lives of countless innocents.
But, sure, for a brief moment, NATO looked kinda dumb, when you think about it. Never mind that this is the biggest favor they ever got in terms of arms sales and expansion
The accidentally good thing is the destruction of the Anglo-American hegemony, the fall of the USD as global reserve, the unraveling of the imperialist sanctions regime, the destruction of Ukrainian fascists, the liberation of the Russian speaking minority.
I'm not really following the debate because some IRL stuff has really swamped me, so ignoring the twitter dronies/nazbols/patsocs, one cousin of mine in Moscow believes that Ukraine and the Azovs has a nazi problem that needs to be dealt with.
Who support Russian invasion in here? If it somewhere on Twitter or shite, then you gotta ask those peoples.
We literally have a user named @Z_Poster365 who said yesterday "I’m [sic] yet to see a single instance of official Russian sources saying anything false or deceptive since the start of this operation."
https://hexbear.net/post/197669/comment/2488038
In that comment chain they then sarcastically said "All information is the same and it’s all propaganda and trying to make any sense of it is futile, nothing can be known." But then further down in the same chain they also said "How about you learn your place as westoids, your role is to destroy your empire from within. That’s it. It is never, ever to criticize the targets of your imperialist empire and align with them. To use rhetorical tricks to obfuscate the truth of the one-sided evil that must be destroyed"
So which is it? Is it true that westerners can somehow gain truth through critical assessment of sources, or that westerners are unable to be critical of the positions of those struggling against western empire? If both these statements are simultaneously true, then the seeking out the truth about the situation is purely an academic and recreational exercise since the application of that knowledge (i.e. making a critique) is considered unacceptable.
It's an incoherent framing with the goal of portraying Russia positively and shielding it from criticism.
Vaguely implying all Russian media is propaganda is not assessing any truth. It’s repeating Liberal ideology. It’s mystifying, it does not lead to any further understanding but is a thought-terminating knee-jerk Liberal chauvinist reflex
Except I'm not vaguely implying anything about Russian media. You made a strong statement that you have seen no false or deceptive reporting about what's been happening. Those are your words.
Some of the responses to you in that comment chain clearly show that isn't the case with the example of the Moskva coverage.
The original comment that started that thread was implying it by calling Russian media propaganda that was just as bad as western propaganda.
It’s not “just as bad” and if you think that you are a chauvinist. It’s that simple
What makes you think it's not just as bad? Every time I've touched pro-Russian news sourced they always presented info that makes Russia seem like the good guy and as the clearly winning side.
How am I, with limited knowledge of how warfare works, supposed to ascertain what is propaganda and what isn't?
Its all going to be propaganda. That's not the problem, we're all smart enough to realize this.
But which propaganda is more truthful and which is less truthful is where the money is. Western sources are doing a bang up job of making shit up whole cloth right now and Russian sources have less reason to.
Russian source exaggerated event, while western source put up ghost of Kiev, snake island, glorifying Nazi and put them on the front page, give Ukraine hope that they going to take back crimea. I know which is worst out of the two
I just don't think trying to figure out which is "worse" is useful. I think we can get more utility out of trying to figure out "what the propaganda is for" from our sources.
I touched pro Russian propaganda and most of them is just exaggerating event, not fabricated ghost of Kiev, snake island , put up illusion that Ukraine going to take back crimea and Donbass, put video games footage as war footage. At that point, western propaganda just putting up fake news
Ok so if Iran and Hezbollah invaded and liberated Palestine you would call them “imperialist capitalists” and condemn their “aggressive invasion”?
Or is that different somehow? Because you have internalized Russophobia
Ukrainians are being liberated from the fascist NATO installed junta and the banderite gangs that terrorize them
Russia cannot stop until the junta is destroyed and denazified and demilitarized, or else it will amass forces and do the same thing again.
You end a war by winning it, not by “sitting back and saying come at me”. That’s how you get eternal war.
You end a war by winning it, not by “sitting back and saying come at me”. That’s how you get eternal war.
Well.. from my "westoid" perspective of being a US citizen... Afghanistan and Iraq come to mind as a bit of a refutation to this statement.
These were not wars with any strategic goal that be could achieved. “War on terror” cannot be won when you are funding and spreading terror, as the US does.
The US was in Iraq and Afghanistan for geopolitical strategic bases, CIA slush funds (opium) & MIC profits. Based on these actual goals of the empire, there is no end state. They would prefer these wars drag on indefinitely or as long as possible.
Russia has clearly stated end goals. Annexation of Crimea & Donbass. This can be achieved. De-militarization of the Ukrainian armed forces can be achieved. Unblocking of water to Crimea, this has been achieved. Liberating Russian speaking populations from foreign backed Nazi occupation, this can be achieved.
Only in the west. Zelenskyy had a 20% approval rating before the invasion. He was elected on a platform of neutrality and peace and he broke that agreement. His government is illegitimate and a foreign puppet
The extent of “fascists” in the Russian state has been overhyped by western liberals as part of their Russiagate crusade. Do you believe Dugin is personally whispering into the ear of Putin as well?
In fact, Russia banned far right groups a couple years back and has been systematically purging them and arresting their members. Russia is more anti-fascist than the west
It’s a socially right, economically center-left party similar to the Merkel’s party in Germany or Assad’s party in Syria. It’s not fascist, and in fact is the target of fascist aggression
Notice i never said that Putin is socialist. I said that Russia has been forced into an anti-imperialist stance.
Assad’s party did de-jihadization just fine. I don’t see why you think a state can’t crush groups that oppose its interests, and since Russia hate is built in to Nazi ideology, the Russian state will act pragmatically in destroying it
You put so much weight into intent and mind reading, it’s very idealist. Look at what the Russian state does, not what it says.
that’s debatable
Do you think Syrian ISIS still exists or holds considerable territory? What’s to debate. They were crushed.
fash are pretty flexible
As I said, Russia isn’t fash. You haven’t proven that they are, and in fact weaken your case when you say “fash could hold any position” to explain away why Russians don’t hold these positions
You think there are SAA backed terrorist groups? Dude. Are we in the DSA in 2016 again? Is Assad also a “fascist imperialist”?
Seeing as Ukrainian nationalism is defined by non-Russianism, no the Ukrainian fash will never cozy up to Russia. It’s literally their entire driving ideology that they hate Russia and wish to define themselves against it at any cost, including self destruction
Well I’m ascribing you positions because you are being cryptic and implying a lot of things without finishing what you mean.
What do you mean by “there are other terrorist jihadist groups in Syria, some of them state backed”? Say what you mean
Backed by Assad’s government? Press X to doubt
Keep smearing anti-imperialists as “just as bad”
You literally cannot subdue your compulsion to get a jab in on Assad as also a terrorist supporter, despite no evidence of this you just can’t help yourself. It’s some type of westoid reflex
How about you just stop making up lies to smear him just because you have an underlying bourgeois optics drive to fulfill
I want you to cut the “both sides” bullshit and get firmly on the correct side of the line.
Imperialism is the primary contradiction. If you don’t stand wholly against the Anglo-American hegemonic empire then we do not agree politically.
How do you think the US power wanes without other powers taking it from them? The US power is waning at the rate it is precisely due to the actions of Russia, China and other anti-imperialists.
It’s like you want to be anti-imperialist but oppose taking any direct action against the empire. It’s incoherent. Are you anti-imperialist, do you want destruction of anglo-American hegemony or not? Russia is getting its hands dirty doing the work of destroying the empire, it’s not going to destroy itself all on its own
Blah blah blah I heard all of this about Assad in the Syrian war and time proved me and anti-imperialists correct over the radlib both-sides folks
economicaly Center Left only by US political reality definitions or maybe compared to what other political blocs are in their countries but these are relative positions. I agree with you in most stuff in this thread but neither Putin nor Merkel nor Assad are domesticaly center left economicaly by socialist standards . Someone like idk Olof Palme or Gaddafi would be economicaly center left by actual socialist standards in different ways
Sure it’s all relative to what your are comparing it to, but the fact of the matter is that Putin and Russian state are categorically not fascist and it’s intellectual laziness and liberalism to default to that assumption without looking at the actual economic and geopolitical policies of the state
yeah no problem with dunking on people throwing "fascism" around with no analysis
The majority of South Koreans would support their government over DPRK. The majority of Taiwanese would support their government over PRC. The majority of Israel would support their government over Hamas or Hezbollah.
When you willfully become a comprador state of empire to get crumbs, it’s on you when you reap what you sow and the de-colonization eventually occurs.
I agree, it should be done strategically and pragmatically, but it should be supported once it begins
We shall see. I trust Putin to do it now that he has begun, he finished the job in Syria and Kazakhstan after all.
Or I don’t have a compulsive westoid hatred of him built into my skull since childhood that I have to unpack because I didn’t grow up in the west
I asked a legitimate question. It seems you're just biased and don't really have the answer.
My bias is pro-colonized of the world and anti-imperialist, you got me. I should be more neutral and consider the empire the same as it’s colonies, you are right! Why didn’t I think of that?
Next time I’ll make sure I don’t prioritize the interests of the workers over that of the bourgeois either
It's interesting how you didn't respond to the second half of my first comment in this chain.
Allow me to pose a different question: How can you distinguish between anti-imperialism and countries trying to make plays for being an empire? For example, after the end of Japanese isolationism in the 19th century, by way of US Gunboat Diplomacy, a common position among those with political power in Japan became that the country needed to become an empire in order to avoid becoming a colony.
If we can't make the distinction between the two then we're just going to fall into conflating being against a specific empire with anti-imperialism more broadly. Iirc one of the lines of thinking of German Social Democrats in supporting the war effort during World War I was that a German victory was preferable to the triumph of the at-the-time dominant British Empire, which was the center of global finance capital. I think we want to avoid a mistake like that being repeated.
The world is unipolar and the empire is hegemonic. We are not in a multipolar, multi-empire world of competing imperialists. We are in the late stage of monopoly imperialism. Capital has globalized and become a single imperialist bloc, the anglo-American empire is the only empire in existence.
Therefore your example about imperialist Japan is irrelevant and no longer applicable to our world.
I can understand being skeptical of the anti-imperialist bonafides of capitalist Russia at first but they have proven themselves in Syria, Belarus and Kazakhstan. They have aligned themselves with the anti-imperialist bloc and forged alliances with AES.
A world being uni-polar doesn't mean it remains that way. Uni-polarity and hegemony can be broken by forming smaller imperial poles. That's the issue of conflating anti-imperialism with opposition to a specific empire, and why I think the example of Japan is relevant.
It can be, but it hasn’t been. I don’t exist in a hypothetical world I exist in the real one. We face the current contradiction of global monopoly imperialism. Face reality
You haven't shown how the world transitioning from uni-polar imperialism to multi-polar imperialism is impossible. You're just repeating your assertion without substantiating it.
I never said it was impossible. I said it’s not currently the case. The current case is monopoly imperialism. Deal with reality not your ideas of what “might” be
What conditions rule out Russia becoming an imperial pole as a strong possibility?
They're a highly developed capitalist economy being isolated from the main imperial pole. What other routes do they have without a revolution? How do they sustain their economy as the rate of profit continues to fall and the west seeks their destruction?
Russia has the economic make-up of a developing 3rd world nation.
Imperialism is the export of massive amounts of capital and the extraction of resources and labor value via ownership.
A nation must have a surplus of capital that it can no longer profitably invest at home to become imperialist. Russia, since the collapse of the USSR, has been notoriously low capital. They have to borrow everything from western banks and the IMF. Even to this day Russia has one of the lowest amounts of capital in its banks of any major nation.
The economy of imperialist nations tends to be financial, service sector & technological. The economy of colonized nations tend to be resource extraction, tourism or manufacturing with low fixed capital tech and high labor.
Russia’s economy resembles that of a colonized nation. They do not have sufficient capital to export it, they still have plenty of areas to invest domestically and are in a much earlier and less developed stage of capitalism.
This, and their alliance with China and other AES, will prevent Russia from becoming an imperialist in the same manner as the anglo-American empire has - at least in the short term.
You could very well ask “what’s stopping Palestine from becoming an imperialist if war is fought on their behalf”? It’s just useless imperialist handwringing
Damn, I'm saving this for being a concise and easy to understand outline of imperialism
Your description of Russia actually makes it sound more like Japan's modernization period.
However you twist history around to justify your eternal westoid hate of Russia is up to you.
I've yet to see any possibility of you having any sort of threshold of "if this is true then some conclusion I previously arrived at is wrong". You started at a conclusion and worked backwards, in part to flatten nuance and frame Russia in a way that lets you be uncritically supportive. This is clear given how you make bold statements and then refuse to ever actually even say "well, that might've been an overstatement" or "that's a good point that I hadn't considered before that highlights the complexity of our situation".
You just stick to your guns regardless of what others say, resorting to name calling when nothing else is left. Your crusading is unprincipled moralizing and quite literally undialectical.
My stance is principled anti-imperialism and sticking to a line, instead of the unprincipled moral purity obsession of the west.
The way you're "sticking to a line" is unprincipled 'anti-imperialism' considering how you choose to flatten out all nuance. You can't even admit when you're slightly wrong about something. (This is NOT to overlook how people also try to hide behind 'nuance' to also take an unprincipled stance, as many radlibs have done recently regarding Ukraine.)
You've refused to reckon with the clear contradiction in your reasoning that I pointed out in the second half of this comment: https://hexbear.net/post/198201/comment/2494868
You also refused to even accept that your original statement about Russian media coverage was too strong. I wouldn't give someone trouble for making a self-correction like that in most instances. Overtstating things is often an honest mistake made in the moment. But you haven't yet taken the opportunity to do this even though I explicitly presented it to you: https://hexbear.net/post/198201/comment/2494909
I don’t see this as a contradiction. Westerners should primarily be focused on destroying their own empire and avoid joining any chorus that villainize the target of their own empire. Outspoken criticisms of enemies only serves to empower the imperialist narrative and framing.
We should of course use critical thought and Marxian lens to suss out the truth, and the truth appears to be that Russia is winning this war and that it is heavily damaging the empire. Using a historical materialist lens we can see that Russia has the economy of a colonized developing nation and not that of an advanced imperialist state (resource based economy, low capital, high amounts of foreign capital and compradors). We can see that Russia is aligned with AES states almost universally. Their position as a target of the empire has forced them to become anti-imperialist to continue to survive.
It’s only a “contradiction” if you already assume Ukrainian sources are true, Russia is getting destroyed and also being very evil. I don’t think we should suppress the hidden truth of Ukraine victories and imperialist Russia, because it simply isn’t the truth. I used 2 rhetorical tactics in that thread, first trying to reason using anti-imperialist principles and second, bludgeoning them as chauvinists and social imperialists when they refused to budge
Thank you. Your positions are now much clearer to me. There are some parts of this I agree with and others I dispute to some lesser or greater extent. I'd like to respond properly, but it may be some time before I do since I have other things I need to do.
Russia has also undermined their "anti-imperialist bonafides" with how they've let Wagner Group mercenaries operate in Mali, Sudan, and the Central African Republic.
You mean the ones invited by the African nations to assist them in ridding themselves of European colonizer paramilitaries?
Was it also imperialism when Syria invited Russia in to assist them in destroying NATO backed jihadists? How is this any different?
I literally just asked how do you personally distinguish fact from propaganda and you immediately started acting like a little bitch about it.
Using a historical materialist lens to understand the motivations at play, checking dubious claims for further sources, following up on claims later once the fog has cleared to see a pattern of reliable sources & applying the claims that check out towards constructing a coherent idea of what is happening.
Ukrainian sources always lie and then change their story to the Russian one quietly weeks or months later. Russian sources don’t tend to lie, and don’t quietly alter their claims. Russians don’t make incoherent claims about the enemy being too strong and too weak, only the Ukrainians do that.
It's hard to take this comment seriously when you sidestepped the criticism I made in the second half of my initial comment.
I'm not saying anything about one being more bad than the other or them being equally bad.
You're allowed to say that your claim that I linked is too strong in retrospect but that we nonetheless should consider Russian media coverage to be better than Western coverage. (Whether or not I agree with that is a different question.)
Also when the invasion first started you made a post saying "Denazification begin" which I read as being supportive.
Because that what the Russian said, and they slowly denazify Ukraine, why don’t you get the rest of my other comment saying that the invasion was a huge mistake and Putin go crazy instead of cherry pick?
I’ve seen anonymous Marxist twitter accounts supporting the invasion, as for public figures there’s infrared/haz and Caleb maupin
You were saying "on this site" and neither Haz nor Maupin are on this site, they'd be laughed off or outright banned. Anonymous Marxists and patsoc weirdos are a tiny, irrelevant, and insignificant tendency, they are literal nobodies without any power, following, or influence. They're not even worth mentioning.
There were definitely a few "Z posting" alt accounts that popped up.
Well, we have the literal "Z-poster" visiting this very thread, but it's one singular, albeit very vocal user. I don't see it as a pervasive issue, just one person with some bad opinions. They'll probably get bored and leave/get banned for being reactionary.
One user who a lot of people are starting to agree with, because my arguments make sense
Quick question, how do you feel about trans rights, or LGBT right, more broadly
Fully support them and all progressive struggles for equal treatment.
The primary contradiction is imperialism however, and nothing will ever make me support the colonizers over the colonized, even if they have better stances on other issues
I kind of misphrased the original post, I meant that I’d seen pro-Russia people on here, but mainly in other places, the post was meant to be about why anybody on the left would support the invasion. If the post is this easy to misinterpret i should probably delete it.
Because geopolitics/cynicism or really hating fashies (despite being ideological fig leaf, they have some fashies there, but not enough for invasion)
How much is enough for invasion? How many civilians do the fascists need to torture and kill before you are justified in destroying them? How many governorships, minister positions, mayoral positions, military officers, etc being filled with Nazis does it take to make them a threat? How much military do you allow them to amass on your border on behalf of empire?
Russia waited far too long for this and should have crush the fascist junta in 2014
For socialist state sure, for capitalist it’s just an excuse.
How many people saddam has to kill for usa to invade? I’m not talking babies in incubators dipshittery, he still was fairly brutal. Was at any point usa invasion justified? (Aside from iran Iraq, but obviously they liked him then).
There are core commonalities in those two wars, and if try to psychology away the real reason (porky interests), you’ll arrive at complicated answer, which is not necessarily true.
Why russia hasn’t attacked in 2014 indeed? Why not in 2019? How are medvedchuk and firtash really involved? Why has not russia restricted gas flows which makes weapons to kill them? Or uranium, or titanium? Why ukrainian oligarchs financed fascists? Why hasn’t russia financed anti fascists?
For socialist state sure, for capitalist it’s just an excuse
the fact that Donbas isn't a socialist state doesn't mean that neo nazis attempting to ethnically cleanse them isn't an unacceptable situation
the region has had fighting for the last 8 years
Why wouldn’t you support the destruction of a NATO backed coup by the anti-imperialist bloc?
