EADaily, August 22nd, 2025. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to strikes by Western long-range missiles deep into its territory.
The 4 oblasts, which is what Russia is trying to annex, voted to join Russia. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (not socialist, despite the name) both requested Russia to come in and help them against Kiev’s shelling of them.
Russia has no colonies, not since the Tsar. As the USSR, it was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and as the modern Russian Federation, it is too poor to practice imperialism, it lacks the financial capital necessary to plunder the global south. The dissolution of the USSR was devatating for their economy, even though they are capitalist now and thus would logically benefit from imperialism, they can’t actually practice it as the western Empire is already set up and fully saturates the global south.
Are you really citing those referendums? Putting aside the MANY criticisms of the methodology, there’s no referendum on earth that would legitimately get 85% turnout and 85% support without being supported by both sides.
Not reading the rest, because it is ludicrous to cite those referendum. And those blatantly fake referendums serve to de-legitimize Russia’s invasion almost as much as the hospitals they’ve bombed.
If you have evidence other than your personal doubts, let me see it. I don’t think it’s surprising that regions that are predominantly Russian ethnically, culturally, and linguistically, that were in a bloody decade long civil war, would vote to join Russia.
As I mentioned, I put aside the criticisms of methodology and just went wit the official claims of Russia.
Try reading this to get you started if common sense isn’t enough for you. If you still have issues, don’t come to me, do your own research because I can’t be bothered doing more than a wikipedia search for you.
I’ve read it already, but thanks. Again, I don’t find it surprising at all that a group of ethnic Russians that have been in a decade-long bloody civil war would vote to join Russia over staying at war with Kiev. Criticize my common sense all you want, I don’t take western claims at face value either.
None of this is backbreaking, it’s well-established history even outlets like the New York Times were reporting on. Further, annexation isn’t imperialism by itself, the goal of the war isn’t plunder or expropriation of wealth, it’s to establish a buffer zone so the west can’t as easily invade by land. My stance is similar to communist orgs like PSL and FRSO. I’m a communist.
The gymnastics you’re displaying in avoiding the hard details of what’s going on, on the other hand, is more back breaking. Why are you batting so hard for the Banderites and the US Empire? Why not support the people of Donetsk and Luhansk?
establish a buffer zone so the west can’t as easily invade by land
Lolwut. The same west who’s sole military arm is currently licking Putin’s boots? Seems to me Russia had a much simpler and easier strategy if that’s all they wanted: bide their time and not get involved with any foreign military actions.
America seems to be collapsing (with or without their interference) and Europe wouldn’t have any public support for militarization without Putin rolling tanks around and brandishing nukes. NATO could have easily dissolved without doing anything in a decade or two, it was already starting to be viewed as a Cold War relic in the west.
You’re saying it’s logical to risk all of that just to help some poor, needy rebels? They need to defend themselves by painting themselves as the largest active aggressor? That’s just straight up bad geopolitical strategy. The 'Merica-Bad goggles have really messed with your vision.
The west is not “licking Putin’s boots.” They’ve realized that decades of millitary-industrial complex rot has decayed productive capacity, so the west has flashy tools but lacks the logistics to field a long-term war. Still, NATO served its function, as a millitant alliance of imperialist states meant to terrorize and force the world into capitulation.
It isn’t just the US that is collapsing, Europe is too. It depends on the same system of imperialism the US spearheads, that’s why the EU acts in near lock-step with the US when it comes to foreign policy. NATO will not dissolve until imperialism dissolves, even if it requires making up a new enemy constantly.
Russia likely cares little for the seperatists in the Donbass region. What it cares about is NATO neutrality, and establishing a buffer zone in the Donbass that prevents NATO from launching an easy land-invasion over the same route the Nazis took in World War II in Operation Barbarossa. It seems that Russia is going to achieve all of its stated goals, so if that’s “bad geopolitical strategy” then I’d have to say that there aren’t many countries I’d say qualify for “good geopolitical strategy.”
I don’t have “Merica bad” goggles, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. The US Empire is bad, but my thought-process, like other communists, focuses on taking a dialectical materialist approach, including analysis of imperialism in the west, and how that drives western foreign policy, and reaction towards that policy. If you want some place to start with reading theory, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list.
Nothing you’ve touched on has any relevancy to your purported support of the people in the Donbass region. Unless your theory is that Russia is a bastion of socialist empowerment and not 5 capitalists in a trench coat, every single one of your talking points is carrying water for Russian imperial ambition. Swapping out one master for another isn’t breaking your shackles. I hope Moscow is at least cutting you a check for your hard work.
The west is not “licking Putin’s boots.”
The guy in charge of the nukes has been in closer contact with Moscow than any western official in the last 50+ years. He’s constantly spewing support on stage, in the media and in private meetings. He’s been holding this stance well before his first term in office. How can NATO be any kind of threat when he’s in your pocket?
His own sycophants are constantly spouting the same NATO talking points as you. Truly you’re a student of 20th century Stalinism when your foreign policy somehow aligns perfectly with every contemporary fascist and proto-fascist government.
It seems that Russia is going to achieve all of its stated goals
When did I deny that? I’m pointing out that taking this aggressive route is a backward approach if maintaining a strong defensive stance is your primary goal. It’s almost like they wanted to gamble for more unstated goals than just that. Taking territory is only necessary if you insist on a future escalation or want to exploit its people/resources.
I know you’re going to try to explain how this obvious Bad Thing (exploitation and escalation) is really a Good Thing via some Rube Goldberg-esque logical knots. Save your keyboard, I’m just not gonna buy that some special flavors of international meddling via national ambitions are good when your whole argument is formulated against it.
And don’t bother with your cherry picked reading list. It’s all formal dialectics until a different source makes some cogent points at the flaws in your dogma. Then it’s endless genetic fallacies and character attacks on sources with no original thought or debate. We can have a real discussion when you come up with a talking point that isn’t copy-paste.
All of what I said is relevant, being a communist is more than just supporting socialist countries. It also means supporting movements against obstacles for socialism, and progressive national liberation movements as well. Palestine has been most consistently supported by communists, despite not being socialist. In the case of Russia, it’s indeed a capitalist country, but one that is forced to work against western imperialism, the greatest obstacle to socialism globally, and do lots of trade with socialist countries like the PRC.
Trump is not in Putin’s pocket. You need to pay attention to what politicians actually do. Trump has been consistently arming Ukraine, now that it looks like there’s no chance of Ukrainian victory, Trump wants to look like a peacemaker and claim credit for ending the war. Simple as that. Russia does not have nearly the influence you fear they do, stop with this BlueAnon nonsense.
You remain deeply confused, because your claim is that Russia either intends on plundering the Donbass, or using it as a staging ground for further attack. Neither of those points are backed by evidence, though, and run counter to the stated aims for Russia, and the previous Minsk agreements! Your argument rests on vapor and vibes, and is trying to pretend all annexation is imperialism, which just wraps around to not understanding anything at all.
Not sure what you mean by your last point. My reading list is designed to be relatively quick to get through, otherwise I’d put literally everything on it. If you have a suggestion for something I am missing, then feel free to make a suggestion! What do you mean by “copy and paste” arguments? My arguments are very consistent with other communist orgs like PSL and FRSO. I suggest you read at least the Prolewiki article on imperialism. Here’s there section on the Russian Federation:
In certain circles, there have been attempts to paint the Russo-Ukrainian conflict as a war between two imperialist countries, the United States and Russia. Similarly to the above Chinese example, this is incorrect.
Unlike the western powers, Russia does not have any capital monopolies that control the world market or supply chains. Russia having Gazprom and an extraction industry doesn’t mean they are imperialist. The essence of imperialism is monopolistic on a global scale, which is precisely why Russia is not imperialist, not whether they have capital generally. A perfect example of monopolies that share the world amongst themselves is the West, specifically the United States in their control of the WEF, IMF, World Bank, and UN Security Council, allowing the western powers to enforce this dominance through jingoistic foreign policy, embargoes, and hindering the development of other countries. Neither Russia nor China has anywhere close to this level of global power through finance capital.
Russia lacks finance capital and division of the world’s resources. It only has 4 of the top 100 corporations in the world and 6 of the top 500. 82% of Russian exports are raw materials, including 58% oil, 11% metal, and 6% food. In 2017, Russia imported $106.2 billion worth’ of machine goods and only exported $12.8 billion. Russia does not have any of the top 100 corporations in terms of capital export, and most Russian capital export is capital flight to tax havens. Russia only controls 0.7% of the world’s wealth and has much less wealth per adult than the United States ($8,843 vs $336,528). Russia has intervened militarily in other countries such as Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria, but not to seize natural resources like imperialist countries do.[7]
What no reading theory does to a mf. Supporting Ukrainian fascists and spouting the same foreign policy as western governments. You libs only understand critical support when it’s Joe Biden
Are you seriously standing with Russian capital and oligarchs over the working people of Ukraine? Based on your above comments you don’t seem to have a problem with the USSR using military occupation to stop satellite states from leaving their orbit. Surprise surprise, you suddenly oppose it when anyone other than Russia does it. In any event, nobody except Russia considers those referenda results even remotely credible. You’re just another pro-imperial campist.
Extreme western chauvanism coming from you. I am standing with the people of the Donbass region, who saw the president they supported, Yanukovych, ousted in a western-backed coup justified by a Banderite false-flag massacre. I stand with the working class of Ukraine that increasingly opposes this war.
I stand against the Banderites that violently overtook the Ukrainian government and turned it into a far-right gangster state, where even Ukrainian allies are reporting about their immense corruption even during wartime. I oppose NATO, and the US Empire using Ukraine as a proxy to deal as much damage to Russia as possible while carving Ukraine out for resources.
The SSRs and SFSRs overwhelmingly supported remaining in the USSR. There were nationalist and fascist movements in some of these SSRs and SFSRs, including the Banderite OUN in Ukraine that collaborated with the Nazis, and I oppose those anticommunist, often antisemitic movements. At the same time, if a nation decides to secede due to a far-right nationalist group coming to power, and is therefore the target of state violence, then I support them.
It isn’t just Russia that supports the Donbass region and their referenda, it’s widespread across the global south. From Cuba to the Sahel States to Venezuela, Belarus, Iran, the PRC, India, Mali, the DPRK, Eritrea, etc. You have an extremely western viewpoint. I’m not a “pro-imperial campist,” I’m a dues-paying communist, and I hold views dominant among communists and anti-imperialists.
The US and NATO are literally fighting a proxy war against Russia as we speak. This has been openly stated now by no lesser person than the US Secretary of State.
Libya was also a country outside the NATO bloc that was lead by a government that the West wanted gone. There are similarities.
Libya wasn’t the first time NATO destroyed a country either, they also destroyed Yugoslavia. It’s not a defensive alliance if it keeps attacking and destroying counties, whether or not you think it destroyed them for the Western imperial project.
NATO destroyed Libya and Yugoslavia, it’s as much a “defensive” pact as the Israeli “Defense” Force is. And yes, NATO does threaten with nukes, that was the entire reason why the USSR sent Cuba nukes through project Anadyr, as a response to the Jupiter missiles stationed in Turkey and the overextension of NATO into East German territory. This practice hasn’t stopped, NATO encircles countries and threatens them with obliteration if they don’t capitulate and free up their markets for western plunder.
What “shit” did I spew? Which of these do you disagree with:
The west is imperialist
NATO destroyed Libya
NATO destroyed Yugoslavia
NATO placed the Jupiter missiles in Turkey and directly aimed them at the USSR, prompting the USSR to send nukes to Cuba
The IDF is an offensive force for settler-colonialism, not a defensive force
NATO over-extended into East German territory
NATO encircles countries to open them up for foreign plunder
All of these are well-established facts. In light of this, the Russian Federation is indeed under constant threat from NATO, a legacy of conflict that began in the Cold War against the Soviets and continues today against the RF. Russia’s survival as a country against NATO lies on nuclear deterrance, if they stop reminding NATO, then NATO will of course be more likely to cross red lines.
Is russia trying to annex territory that doesnt belong to them right now or not? Yes or no answer please.
Let me know how the west is annexing other countries making them imperalist.
Nobody ever wanted or needed to attack Russia. Nato is not a country nor is it annexing territory nor is it forcing people to join it. That is straight up russian propaganda to supress the real problems within the country and to distract. You have a fucking monarch up there with more wealth than he would ever need and yet this guy decides to attack a country minding its own business.
Btw, Ukraine used to rely on nuclear deterrance but it was Russia (and not nato) attacking it after signing multiple deals that it wouldnt.
None of them are wrong at all, and you didn’t elaborate on any of that. The mere fact that you deny western imperialism is proof enough that you have a fundamentally lacking understanding of what’s going on in the world. Imperialism isn’t “annexation,” it’s a process of extraction and plunder. the West exports large amounts of financial capital to super-exploit for super-profits, and uses immense millitary force to protect that system. NATO is the means to protect this.
Same with you denying that the IDF is a terrorist army for settler-colonialism, this is pure Zionism. I only hope that you were speaking irrationally out of an emotional response and do not genuinely see the IOF as defensive.
As for Ukraine, it broke both Minsk agreements, admitted to never intending on following them, and continued slaughtering ethnic Russians in the Donbass region.
Russia has no colonies. As the USSR, it was an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial force. After its dissolution, the economy imploded and is still recovering. It has had no opportunity to gain colonies like it had under the Tsar, even if they wanted to.
NATO started as an anti-communist alliance, with terrorist operations like Operation Gladio. Now, it maintains its status as the strongest alliance of imperialist countries on the planet. It’s as “defensive” as the Israeli “Defense” Force is.
Anyone can accuse a country of imperialism. Ultimately, people argue over the definitions of imperialism, and those hostile to a country will cling to the accusations, regardless of merit. Russia does not meet the Marxist intetpretation of imperialism or neocolonialism, but that doesn’t stop the west from trying to pin that on them.
If you’re changing the goalposts here from imperialism to the ‘marxist interpretation of imperialism’ would you disagree that a key characteristics of marxist imperialism is monopolistic capitalism, or that imperialism arises from the concentration of economic power in the hands of powerful monopolies and cartels within capitalist nation, which Russia’s oligarchs is a prime example of?
I’m not changing the goalposts, the Marxist conception of imperialism originates mostly with Lenin’s advancements on Hobson. Those who wish to minimize and generalize imperialism erase its ties to monopoly capitalism, and make it about any kind of millitant action, which is a step backwards from even Hobson.
Either way, Russia does not have monopolies on a global scale. They are nationalist and deeply capitalist, but have an inwardly driven economy, not an outwardly driven one. If Russia had the ability to truly become a world monopolistic power, then it would be imperialist, but it lacks the financial capital to do so as well as the open countries to imperialize that aren’t already under the thumb of the west.
The US Empire, on the other hand, is a prime example of having monopolies on a global scale, and using its millitary to keep this going.
The Marxist interpretation of imperialism says imperialism arises from the concentration of economic power in the hands of powerful monopolies and cartels within the capitalist nation which is pretty clear that it isn’t talking about monopolies on a global scale.
Being nationalist and deeply capitalist in an inwardly driven economy seems to fall squarely into the definition making Russia an imperialist state by the marxist definition.
No, the monopoly stage of capitalism is a prerequisite for imperialism, not imperialism itself. Imperialism is economically compelled by reaching the monopoly stage, it arises from the conditions you set out but is not itself those conditions. A country cannot imperialize itself. I recommend reading at least the Prolewiki article on imperialism, but reading Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is well worth it.
yeyeye orrrrr the US empire could end it’s proxy war and NATO colonialism!
Removed by mod
Sorry you got censored.
The 4 oblasts, which is what Russia is trying to annex, voted to join Russia. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (not socialist, despite the name) both requested Russia to come in and help them against Kiev’s shelling of them.
Russia has no colonies, not since the Tsar. As the USSR, it was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and as the modern Russian Federation, it is too poor to practice imperialism, it lacks the financial capital necessary to plunder the global south. The dissolution of the USSR was devatating for their economy, even though they are capitalist now and thus would logically benefit from imperialism, they can’t actually practice it as the western Empire is already set up and fully saturates the global south.
Are you really citing those referendums? Putting aside the MANY criticisms of the methodology, there’s no referendum on earth that would legitimately get 85% turnout and 85% support without being supported by both sides.
Not reading the rest, because it is ludicrous to cite those referendum. And those blatantly fake referendums serve to de-legitimize Russia’s invasion almost as much as the hospitals they’ve bombed.
If you have evidence other than your personal doubts, let me see it. I don’t think it’s surprising that regions that are predominantly Russian ethnically, culturally, and linguistically, that were in a bloody decade long civil war, would vote to join Russia.
As I mentioned, I put aside the criticisms of methodology and just went wit the official claims of Russia.
Try reading this to get you started if common sense isn’t enough for you. If you still have issues, don’t come to me, do your own research because I can’t be bothered doing more than a wikipedia search for you.
Liberals in a nut shell
I’ve read it already, but thanks. Again, I don’t find it surprising at all that a group of ethnic Russians that have been in a decade-long bloody civil war would vote to join Russia over staying at war with Kiev. Criticize my common sense all you want, I don’t take western claims at face value either.
Try not to break your back bending over backwards that hard to justify Russian imperialism.
None of this is backbreaking, it’s well-established history even outlets like the New York Times were reporting on. Further, annexation isn’t imperialism by itself, the goal of the war isn’t plunder or expropriation of wealth, it’s to establish a buffer zone so the west can’t as easily invade by land. My stance is similar to communist orgs like PSL and FRSO. I’m a communist.
The gymnastics you’re displaying in avoiding the hard details of what’s going on, on the other hand, is more back breaking. Why are you batting so hard for the Banderites and the US Empire? Why not support the people of Donetsk and Luhansk?
Lolwut. The same west who’s sole military arm is currently licking Putin’s boots? Seems to me Russia had a much simpler and easier strategy if that’s all they wanted: bide their time and not get involved with any foreign military actions.
America seems to be collapsing (with or without their interference) and Europe wouldn’t have any public support for militarization without Putin rolling tanks around and brandishing nukes. NATO could have easily dissolved without doing anything in a decade or two, it was already starting to be viewed as a Cold War relic in the west.
You’re saying it’s logical to risk all of that just to help some poor, needy rebels? They need to defend themselves by painting themselves as the largest active aggressor? That’s just straight up bad geopolitical strategy. The 'Merica-Bad goggles have really messed with your vision.
The west is not “licking Putin’s boots.” They’ve realized that decades of millitary-industrial complex rot has decayed productive capacity, so the west has flashy tools but lacks the logistics to field a long-term war. Still, NATO served its function, as a millitant alliance of imperialist states meant to terrorize and force the world into capitulation.
It isn’t just the US that is collapsing, Europe is too. It depends on the same system of imperialism the US spearheads, that’s why the EU acts in near lock-step with the US when it comes to foreign policy. NATO will not dissolve until imperialism dissolves, even if it requires making up a new enemy constantly.
Russia likely cares little for the seperatists in the Donbass region. What it cares about is NATO neutrality, and establishing a buffer zone in the Donbass that prevents NATO from launching an easy land-invasion over the same route the Nazis took in World War II in Operation Barbarossa. It seems that Russia is going to achieve all of its stated goals, so if that’s “bad geopolitical strategy” then I’d have to say that there aren’t many countries I’d say qualify for “good geopolitical strategy.”
I don’t have “Merica bad” goggles, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. The US Empire is bad, but my thought-process, like other communists, focuses on taking a dialectical materialist approach, including analysis of imperialism in the west, and how that drives western foreign policy, and reaction towards that policy. If you want some place to start with reading theory, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list.
Nothing you’ve touched on has any relevancy to your purported support of the people in the Donbass region. Unless your theory is that Russia is a bastion of socialist empowerment and not 5 capitalists in a trench coat, every single one of your talking points is carrying water for Russian imperial ambition. Swapping out one master for another isn’t breaking your shackles. I hope Moscow is at least cutting you a check for your hard work.
The guy in charge of the nukes has been in closer contact with Moscow than any western official in the last 50+ years. He’s constantly spewing support on stage, in the media and in private meetings. He’s been holding this stance well before his first term in office. How can NATO be any kind of threat when he’s in your pocket?
His own sycophants are constantly spouting the same NATO talking points as you. Truly you’re a student of 20th century Stalinism when your foreign policy somehow aligns perfectly with every contemporary fascist and proto-fascist government.
When did I deny that? I’m pointing out that taking this aggressive route is a backward approach if maintaining a strong defensive stance is your primary goal. It’s almost like they wanted to gamble for more unstated goals than just that. Taking territory is only necessary if you insist on a future escalation or want to exploit its people/resources.
I know you’re going to try to explain how this obvious Bad Thing (exploitation and escalation) is really a Good Thing via some Rube Goldberg-esque logical knots. Save your keyboard, I’m just not gonna buy that some special flavors of international meddling via national ambitions are good when your whole argument is formulated against it.
And don’t bother with your cherry picked reading list. It’s all formal dialectics until a different source makes some cogent points at the flaws in your dogma. Then it’s endless genetic fallacies and character attacks on sources with no original thought or debate. We can have a real discussion when you come up with a talking point that isn’t copy-paste.
This is very silly.
All of what I said is relevant, being a communist is more than just supporting socialist countries. It also means supporting movements against obstacles for socialism, and progressive national liberation movements as well. Palestine has been most consistently supported by communists, despite not being socialist. In the case of Russia, it’s indeed a capitalist country, but one that is forced to work against western imperialism, the greatest obstacle to socialism globally, and do lots of trade with socialist countries like the PRC.
Trump is not in Putin’s pocket. You need to pay attention to what politicians actually do. Trump has been consistently arming Ukraine, now that it looks like there’s no chance of Ukrainian victory, Trump wants to look like a peacemaker and claim credit for ending the war. Simple as that. Russia does not have nearly the influence you fear they do, stop with this BlueAnon nonsense.
You remain deeply confused, because your claim is that Russia either intends on plundering the Donbass, or using it as a staging ground for further attack. Neither of those points are backed by evidence, though, and run counter to the stated aims for Russia, and the previous Minsk agreements! Your argument rests on vapor and vibes, and is trying to pretend all annexation is imperialism, which just wraps around to not understanding anything at all.
Not sure what you mean by your last point. My reading list is designed to be relatively quick to get through, otherwise I’d put literally everything on it. If you have a suggestion for something I am missing, then feel free to make a suggestion! What do you mean by “copy and paste” arguments? My arguments are very consistent with other communist orgs like PSL and FRSO. I suggest you read at least the Prolewiki article on imperialism. Here’s there section on the Russian Federation:
What no reading theory does to a mf. Supporting Ukrainian fascists and spouting the same foreign policy as western governments. You libs only understand critical support when it’s Joe Biden
You mean the little green men?
…what? Are you genuinely implying that everyone in the Donbass region is a disguised Russian soldier?
Are you seriously standing with Russian capital and oligarchs over the working people of Ukraine? Based on your above comments you don’t seem to have a problem with the USSR using military occupation to stop satellite states from leaving their orbit. Surprise surprise, you suddenly oppose it when anyone other than Russia does it. In any event, nobody except Russia considers those referenda results even remotely credible. You’re just another pro-imperial campist.
Extreme western chauvanism coming from you. I am standing with the people of the Donbass region, who saw the president they supported, Yanukovych, ousted in a western-backed coup justified by a Banderite false-flag massacre. I stand with the working class of Ukraine that increasingly opposes this war.
I stand against the Banderites that violently overtook the Ukrainian government and turned it into a far-right gangster state, where even Ukrainian allies are reporting about their immense corruption even during wartime. I oppose NATO, and the US Empire using Ukraine as a proxy to deal as much damage to Russia as possible while carving Ukraine out for resources.
The SSRs and SFSRs overwhelmingly supported remaining in the USSR. There were nationalist and fascist movements in some of these SSRs and SFSRs, including the Banderite OUN in Ukraine that collaborated with the Nazis, and I oppose those anticommunist, often antisemitic movements. At the same time, if a nation decides to secede due to a far-right nationalist group coming to power, and is therefore the target of state violence, then I support them.
It isn’t just Russia that supports the Donbass region and their referenda, it’s widespread across the global south. From Cuba to the Sahel States to Venezuela, Belarus, Iran, the PRC, India, Mali, the DPRK, Eritrea, etc. You have an extremely western viewpoint. I’m not a “pro-imperial campist,” I’m a dues-paying communist, and I hold views dominant among communists and anti-imperialists.
Oh so the US and NATO started attacking Russia right?
The US and NATO are literally fighting a proxy war against Russia as we speak. This has been openly stated now by no lesser person than the US Secretary of State.
NATO destroyed Libya.
Libya, Russia, same thing so I definitely see the relevance
Libya was also a country outside the NATO bloc that was lead by a government that the West wanted gone. There are similarities.
Libya wasn’t the first time NATO destroyed a country either, they also destroyed Yugoslavia. It’s not a defensive alliance if it keeps attacking and destroying counties, whether or not you think it destroyed them for the Western imperial project.
If you can’t see that nato always wants to genocide russians you are either very uninformed or ignore it intentionally
So what does that have to do with Russia?
Did Nato threaten to use nukes? No Nato also doesnt attack, its a defense pact, so stop spreading russian propaganda.
🤡
NATO destroyed Libya and Yugoslavia, it’s as much a “defensive” pact as the Israeli “Defense” Force is. And yes, NATO does threaten with nukes, that was the entire reason why the USSR sent Cuba nukes through project Anadyr, as a response to the Jupiter missiles stationed in Turkey and the overextension of NATO into East German territory. This practice hasn’t stopped, NATO encircles countries and threatens them with obliteration if they don’t capitulate and free up their markets for western plunder.
Removed by mod
What “shit” did I spew? Which of these do you disagree with:
The west is imperialist
NATO destroyed Libya
NATO destroyed Yugoslavia
NATO placed the Jupiter missiles in Turkey and directly aimed them at the USSR, prompting the USSR to send nukes to Cuba
The IDF is an offensive force for settler-colonialism, not a defensive force
NATO over-extended into East German territory
NATO encircles countries to open them up for foreign plunder
All of these are well-established facts. In light of this, the Russian Federation is indeed under constant threat from NATO, a legacy of conflict that began in the Cold War against the Soviets and continues today against the RF. Russia’s survival as a country against NATO lies on nuclear deterrance, if they stop reminding NATO, then NATO will of course be more likely to cross red lines.
All of them are at least partially wrong.
Is russia trying to annex territory that doesnt belong to them right now or not? Yes or no answer please.
Let me know how the west is annexing other countries making them imperalist.
Nobody ever wanted or needed to attack Russia. Nato is not a country nor is it annexing territory nor is it forcing people to join it. That is straight up russian propaganda to supress the real problems within the country and to distract. You have a fucking monarch up there with more wealth than he would ever need and yet this guy decides to attack a country minding its own business.
Btw, Ukraine used to rely on nuclear deterrance but it was Russia (and not nato) attacking it after signing multiple deals that it wouldnt.
None of them are wrong at all, and you didn’t elaborate on any of that. The mere fact that you deny western imperialism is proof enough that you have a fundamentally lacking understanding of what’s going on in the world. Imperialism isn’t “annexation,” it’s a process of extraction and plunder. the West exports large amounts of financial capital to super-exploit for super-profits, and uses immense millitary force to protect that system. NATO is the means to protect this.
Same with you denying that the IDF is a terrorist army for settler-colonialism, this is pure Zionism. I only hope that you were speaking irrationally out of an emotional response and do not genuinely see the IOF as defensive.
As for Ukraine, it broke both Minsk agreements, admitted to never intending on following them, and continued slaughtering ethnic Russians in the Donbass region.
Russia is literally a colonial power. NATO is a defensive alliance of countries that don’t want to be gobbled up by the Russian empire.
Name a Russian colony
Chechnya… Georgia… Azerbaijan…
You manged to name a Turkish colony there, have a gold star for trying.
Russia has no colonies. As the USSR, it was an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial force. After its dissolution, the economy imploded and is still recovering. It has had no opportunity to gain colonies like it had under the Tsar, even if they wanted to.
NATO started as an anti-communist alliance, with terrorist operations like Operation Gladio. Now, it maintains its status as the strongest alliance of imperialist countries on the planet. It’s as “defensive” as the Israeli “Defense” Force is.
Russian imperialism.
Anyone can accuse a country of imperialism. Ultimately, people argue over the definitions of imperialism, and those hostile to a country will cling to the accusations, regardless of merit. Russia does not meet the Marxist intetpretation of imperialism or neocolonialism, but that doesn’t stop the west from trying to pin that on them.
If you’re changing the goalposts here from imperialism to the ‘marxist interpretation of imperialism’ would you disagree that a key characteristics of marxist imperialism is monopolistic capitalism, or that imperialism arises from the concentration of economic power in the hands of powerful monopolies and cartels within capitalist nation, which Russia’s oligarchs is a prime example of?
I’m not changing the goalposts, the Marxist conception of imperialism originates mostly with Lenin’s advancements on Hobson. Those who wish to minimize and generalize imperialism erase its ties to monopoly capitalism, and make it about any kind of millitant action, which is a step backwards from even Hobson.
Either way, Russia does not have monopolies on a global scale. They are nationalist and deeply capitalist, but have an inwardly driven economy, not an outwardly driven one. If Russia had the ability to truly become a world monopolistic power, then it would be imperialist, but it lacks the financial capital to do so as well as the open countries to imperialize that aren’t already under the thumb of the west.
The US Empire, on the other hand, is a prime example of having monopolies on a global scale, and using its millitary to keep this going.
The Marxist interpretation of imperialism says imperialism arises from the concentration of economic power in the hands of powerful monopolies and cartels within the capitalist nation which is pretty clear that it isn’t talking about monopolies on a global scale.
Being nationalist and deeply capitalist in an inwardly driven economy seems to fall squarely into the definition making Russia an imperialist state by the marxist definition.
No, the monopoly stage of capitalism is a prerequisite for imperialism, not imperialism itself. Imperialism is economically compelled by reaching the monopoly stage, it arises from the conditions you set out but is not itself those conditions. A country cannot imperialize itself. I recommend reading at least the Prolewiki article on imperialism, but reading Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is well worth it.
Removed by mod
No. 👍
Entire eastern Europe: *cough* *cough*
The SSRs were not colonies, they were a part of the broad USSR as a socialist economy.
Of course they were.
Yes, they were not colonies and were indeed parts of the broad socialist economy.
Removed by mod
I’m a communist for free, I don’t get paid to be a Marxist-Leninist. In fact, I pay dues.
😂😂😂
What do you disagree with? Specifically.
Removed by mod
Nice bit of ableism and conspiracy theorism there, a classic duo!