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
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.
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 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
I asked a legitimate question. It seems you're just biased and don't really have the answer.
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?
