Its like Hillary walking into a working class kitchen for the first time.
They've been shielded from even critical support of China and other AES for so long they literally, not figuratively, literally cannot process that people exist that have beliefs that aren't Reddit Approved. They immediately assume it's bots or wumao. Human beings can't possibly hold these beliefs, so they must be Oriental hordes or actual robots.
Shitlib support of ukronazism is the ultimate cringe.
deleted by creator
are there? shit. I'll support Cuba's offensive to liberate both Ukrainian and Russian territory from these countries and institute state socialism from now on then, what villages are they starting it from?
apologies for the snark, I just personally cannot see a future where NATO/Ukraine wins and things are better, but I can see a future where Russia wins and things are better, and drawing an equivalence between them because both countries are led by moronic oligarchs and supporting some secret third thing just feels like when communists are like "Actually, I don't support either America or China and Russia. I support the global working class who needs to organize and overthrow the bourgeoisie!" is just like, yeah, you're technically correct, but we've also been saying that for the last century now and it hasn't happened, and the powers fighting America seem like the best shot we have right now of creating the conditions for the working class to institute that global revolution
deleted by creator
It is damaging the western hegemony which has brought poverty and death to the third world under its reign of terror. Ending or weakening that is an unambiguous good.
deleted by creator
Multipolarity I think is what people are hoping for here. Not having a single capitalist power so invincible that it can control the world unilaterally.
It would ostensibly allow smaller countries to play the larger powers off each other and extract some concessions for one. Just the very fact of having other options provides at least some leverage and makes development and security more likely. And if any of those alternatives are less bloodthirsty and exploitative than the US (how could they not be?), so much the better.
You’re right that none of this is a direct confrontation of capitalism, but even just as a demonstration that other nations can stand up to the US, perhaps with the help of a competing capitalist power, this war can (maybe already has) bolstered resistance to the worst of imperialism. It’s not global communism but it’s a step in the right direction, or at least a step away from complete subjugation to a single globe spanning hegemon.
So, emboldening for the global south at least. And perhaps it coalesces into a broader post-post-colonial movement at some point. Who’s to say. Hard to imagine any shift in the global balance of power away from the west right now being a bad thing anyway.
The war itself is of course a disaster and tragedy for everyone involved. But on a purely geopolitical level, I think there’s a real possibility that it ends up benefiting the global proletariat going forward.
deleted by creator
Niger was actually exactly what I was thinking of. That’s an interesting question though. I think we have to bear in mind that while Russia is certainly interested in multipolarity, it also has its own more concrete individual interests to consider since the war is right next door. And these might not always line up precisely with a broader global interest in multipolarity.
I tend to think of multipolarity in this context more as a practical result than the single overarching conscious goal of Russia’s here. They’ve certainly demonstrated that there are cracks in the armor, but I think they’re after something closer to an actual security guarantee in the region moving forward. What it will take to achieve that (or whether it is in fact achievable in the short term) is anybody’s guess. Depends on how much both sides want to press the issue I guess.
And I think this is a point a lot of people miss when they think of critical support for Russia as a fondness for the Russian government or for war itself. It’s more about the recognition that there may be positive global outcomes from Russia winning the war, regardless of their motivations (though I personally think they are at least somewhat legitimate). More that Russia’s resistance to the west is useful to the rest of the world than that they are “the good guys.”
I think it's pretty evident that the western hegemony has already been greatly weakened by the conflict. While it's true Russia isn't trying to weaken capitalism, capitalist hegemony is a completely separate issue - Russia's actions are weakening western hegemony. Capitalism is a domino later in the chain. Africa breaking the neocolonial chains and hopefully being able to develop itself into the economic powerhouse it could be will be a massive boon to everywhere that isn't The West, because it's a new market and trading partner that doesn't require westerners to get their cut.
As far as the global south, the benefits don't really have anything to do with Russia getting more territory. The benefits are about demonstrating western weapons and tactics to be paper tigers, showing how shallow western weapons supplies are and how slow and unproductive western military industrial complexes are. It's also showing the value of western promises of military support - Taiwan and every other western vassal are surely watching this. The conflict is bleeding NATO resources dry, which is the reverse of what NATO hoped they would be getting out of this. The exposure of the west's weakness is what benefits the global south and the rest of the planet.
I think it's certainly true that Russia is now and will be feared in Europe, but that ship had already sailed. The US is doing as much economic warfare against Europe as they are Russia, and Europe is the one seriously damaged by it. America also started that warfare before this conflict expanded in 2022 - trying to cut Russia out of the European market has always been important for the US State Department. Europe has lost their energy sovereignty and is now undergoing shock doctrine style de-industrialization. It's not going to matter what Europe thinks about Russia as they get increasingly economically hobbled and poorer. The rest of the world however doesn't share Europe or America's view of Russia, so this is not really any loss for Russia geopolitically. In South America and Africa, for example, Russia is largely viewed positively. The people of the world know whose heel is on their necks - it's not Russia's.
deleted by creator
A multipolar world will have less ability to crush leftist governments without consequence. This isn't the solution to capitalism, but it weakens it. This is a domino, not the final blow.
deleted by creator
Anything that weakens capitalism is good, comrade, particularly if it's capitalists on both sides doing it. It's a terrible tragedy that lives are lost but we can't stop that.
Russian independence shields China, which shields the global south.
You know, when those 'sections' make up an enormous chunk of the whole, including members of the military leadership, it's more of a problem than you think it is.
Believing that modern Russia is socialist or communist and not a plutocracy run by a handful of oligarchs is cringe.
Yeah it is, libs should stop doing it
Good that none is believing that it is then (modern Russia being socialist)
You're more than a decade late about the oligarchs in Russia, they no longer wield the power they used to. American oligarchs have much more influence on our government than Russian wealthy do now.
I guess it depends on whether or not you think Putin is an oligarch as he's seized power from many of them and placed it under himself, the same power under fewer oligarchs isn't better.
The wealthy definitely have too much control over the US government, and many of them should probably be executed for treason.
If you're calling the person who occupies the political seat of power an oligarch I think you're stretching the definition too much.
If Bill Gates were elected president would he cease to be an oligarch? If Joe Biden used his powers as president to take personal control over large portions of the country's industry to enrich himself would that not make him an oligarch?
I guess you think kings were oligarchs too? Oligarchs are not in the government but exert undue influence on it. If they're in the state then they're just state actors in some form or another.
All of them should definitely be executed for crimes against humanity.
pretty sure the only person who thinks Russia is communist is my racist aunt in Illinois lol
Weird how every time a lib comes back with "well this thing you believe is stupid!" it's always some deranged thing they made up and at least half the time projection
That's literally what Capitalism is though, why are you singling out Russia as if the states on the other side of the conflict were any different?
Who even put those Russian oligarchs in power anyway? Something something undemocratic dissolution of the USSR
Hey do you think theres a better name for a system run by oligarchs somewhere out there or is plutocracy the only one?
Haha you're right, I just felt like using oligarchs and oligarchy in the same sentence was repetitive, and I like to imagine a system run by planetoids in deep space.
astrology is an oligarchy, oh shit oh fuck