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
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.
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
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 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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Do you think Syrian ISIS still exists or holds considerable territory? What’s to debate. They were crushed.
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
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
Backed by Assad’s government? Press X to doubt
Keep smearing anti-imperialists as “just as bad”
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
How about you just stop making up lies to smear him just because you have an underlying bourgeois optics drive to fulfill
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
I agree, it should be done strategically and pragmatically, but it should be supported once it begins
deleted by creator
We shall see. I trust Putin to do it now that he has begun, he finished the job in Syria and Kazakhstan after all.
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
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.)
Please point to the place where I said something incorrect
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.
You're kinda coming off a bit reddit here tbh
deleted by creator
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.