I think we need to clarify that Russia annexing Ukraine is most definitely not based, and also attacks the legacy of the Soviet Union, especially of Lenin. This war could’ve easily been avoided if the West had respected Russia’s red lines, which they purposefully crossed.
Russia annexing Ukraine is most definitely not based
I don’t know. Comparing economy of Crimea to the shock therapy and looting by the west that will happen to whatever remain from Ukraine after the war (even Zelensky promised that and it will be much worse), full annexation would be best (or least worst) option for the working class there.
Pity they won’t see it like that, it’s lose-lose alternative.
Also Lenin supported independence of Ukraine, but in context. He multiple times stated that selfdetermination of nation is not a dogma, it is to be pursued only if that’s revolutionary. If it would be reactionary, like the current Ukraine, then it should be opposed.
I believe (although it is unlikely that Russia would even completely annex Ukraine) in the event of complete annexation Ukraine would probably just become the 22nd Russian republic with a high degree of autonomy like Tuva, Dagestan or Chechnya. This autonomy coupled with a stronger national economy, a larger military, and the ability to freely travel throughout all of Russia seems like a pretty good deal to me (a Western ML with limited knowledge of the situation, granted).
Not to say that the Russian autonomous republic model even compares to the Soviet one, or that bad faith actors would not try to totally destroy Ukrainian national identity. But I think the Union State is a good idea (Belarus and Russia as one state and two nations)… Ukraine could almost certainly easily be a part of that, were they not ruled by comprador westaboos.
For sure, and not to venerate Putin (obligatory caveat etc etc) but he’s been calling for something functionally similar with liquid borders between Ukraine and Russia and just recognition that they share much of the same national history.
Lukashenko also called for this last year in January, he was talking something about ‘‘getting Ukraine back’’ and uniting with Russia, Ukraine and even Kazakhstan(idk why Kazakhstan).
Kazakhstan is on the same trajectory back towards a federation state as Belorussia, their membership in the security organization which put down that colour revolution recently was a good indicator.
Nations in the region seem to understand that they’re either going to get enslaved by the west (Armenia seems not too keen on having Azerbajan invading, Georgia is not too keen of becoming a battering ram against Russia again, Kazakhstan is interested in developping its lands, not having jihadists running around beheading people, and no one wants to be the second Ukraine) or unite under a common banner. So currently they’re in the phase of finding acceptable conditions with the gravitational center, that is Russia, for such a union. At least that’s how it seems to me.
I hope that after liberation of Ukraine, there will be unification between whatever is left with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, along with Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Artsakh and maybe Armenia.
I also don’t think they will annex entire Ukraine. There’s the issue of Ukraine not being unified country. I mostly wonder if Russia will try for Odessa and for the full Black Sea run. It’s probable because that part of russian interest didn’t changed since at least Peter I. That would also give them land border with Transnistria. And would leave Ukraine as only Galicia rump state, probably unstable and full of terrorists. Thing is, this instability and terrorism would in very large part be aimed at Europe and be buffer state - but on the other hand, Russia might be up for the challenge anyway since no one would want such buffer state at the borders, and Ukraine sowing terror across Europe is in the USA interest as well.
Also it all depends on how the war would end, since wars have nasty habits of not going according to plans.
Obviously I don’t like a nazi Ukraine. I understand perfectly that it’s not a sovereign country. Since 2014 it’s been ruled like a US colony. But I still believe that Russia coming in and chopping up the country as they see fit, and leaving the rest as a failed state is far from an ideal solution.
Thanks someome needed to say that. Last time I said people here are a little too much into Putin (he is an anticommunist afterall) I got downvoted to oblivion for some reason
Not supporting NATO or the Ukranazis, but still, things like this makes me think people are forgeting what the critical in critical support mean.
It is a difficult line to tread. But Putin is not a moron or a deranged megalomaniac like people like to claim, and I am worried that any neutral explanation or overview of he or the things the Russian state does are (or have been) viewed as uncritical support. Every time we discuss something related to Russia, we should not need to add a thousand caveats about how actually horrible they all are or have to defensively retreat into potentially Russophobic territory just to make positions known. Things are nuanced, yes, but I am worried that dialogue will sort of get lost in the sauce of making sure everyone is on the same page about how bad Putin is.
I guess to say, I don’t see the uncritical support too much. I see a very small amount of Z type comments and such, but most of these seem to be from comrades literally in or from the global south who view the SMO as (insert a thousand geopolitical explanations of what it actually is) the attempted liberation of an oppressed ethnic minority. “Comrade Putin?” comments are still usually made only sardonically. Putin being right on some things boggles the mind of some comrades, surely, but if they believe Putin might be a closet commie or what have you they’re usually corrected by more knowledgeable comrades on the site.
It’s not exactly the same, but take the Iran-Saudi Arabia peace negotiations. We love to see it. China is leading the way. When reporting on this, is it necessary to incessantly reiterate our disdain for the Saudi regime or Iran’s revolutionary government, to recount all of their shortcomings so we all know that it’s still bad news? I wouldn’t personally think so, even though I think it’s important to remain cognizant of the material issues those nations face. Peace is good and should be celebrated.
I agree with many things but as the original comment pointed out, Russia anexing Ukraine is not based. I’m from the global south too, my country is part of the BRICS so when I point out these things is not because I need to reiterate that Russia is bad all the time nor that Putin is crazy (he is not) or because of Russophobia. Its because I feel like people are praising things they shouldnt
I think we need to clarify that Russia annexing Ukraine is most definitely not based, and also attacks the legacy of the Soviet Union, especially of Lenin. This war could’ve easily been avoided if the West had respected Russia’s red lines, which they purposefully crossed.
I don’t know. Comparing economy of Crimea to the shock therapy and looting by the west that will happen to whatever remain from Ukraine after the war (even Zelensky promised that and it will be much worse), full annexation would be best (or least worst) option for the working class there.
Pity they won’t see it like that, it’s lose-lose alternative.
Also Lenin supported independence of Ukraine, but in context. He multiple times stated that selfdetermination of nation is not a dogma, it is to be pursued only if that’s revolutionary. If it would be reactionary, like the current Ukraine, then it should be opposed.
I believe (although it is unlikely that Russia would even completely annex Ukraine) in the event of complete annexation Ukraine would probably just become the 22nd Russian republic with a high degree of autonomy like Tuva, Dagestan or Chechnya. This autonomy coupled with a stronger national economy, a larger military, and the ability to freely travel throughout all of Russia seems like a pretty good deal to me (a Western ML with limited knowledge of the situation, granted).
Not to say that the Russian autonomous republic model even compares to the Soviet one, or that bad faith actors would not try to totally destroy Ukrainian national identity. But I think the Union State is a good idea (Belarus and Russia as one state and two nations)… Ukraine could almost certainly easily be a part of that, were they not ruled by comprador westaboos.
Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in one country would be a good start
For sure, and not to venerate Putin (obligatory caveat etc etc) but he’s been calling for something functionally similar with liquid borders between Ukraine and Russia and just recognition that they share much of the same national history.
Lukashenko also called for this last year in January, he was talking something about ‘‘getting Ukraine back’’ and uniting with Russia, Ukraine and even Kazakhstan(idk why Kazakhstan).
Kazakhstan is on the same trajectory back towards a federation state as Belorussia, their membership in the security organization which put down that colour revolution recently was a good indicator.
Nations in the region seem to understand that they’re either going to get enslaved by the west (Armenia seems not too keen on having Azerbajan invading, Georgia is not too keen of becoming a battering ram against Russia again, Kazakhstan is interested in developping its lands, not having jihadists running around beheading people, and no one wants to be the second Ukraine) or unite under a common banner. So currently they’re in the phase of finding acceptable conditions with the gravitational center, that is Russia, for such a union. At least that’s how it seems to me.
I hope that after liberation of Ukraine, there will be unification between whatever is left with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, along with Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Artsakh and maybe Armenia.
Kazakhstan is the centerpiece of the Central Asia, and have huge economic potential.
And then Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Artsakh can also join.
The uh, more’s the merrier? 😅
(interesting article re: Lukashenko’s views on Central Asia https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2022/07/03/2737893/lukashenko-next-battle-for-redivision-of-world-will-be-in-central-asia )
I also don’t think they will annex entire Ukraine. There’s the issue of Ukraine not being unified country. I mostly wonder if Russia will try for Odessa and for the full Black Sea run. It’s probable because that part of russian interest didn’t changed since at least Peter I. That would also give them land border with Transnistria. And would leave Ukraine as only Galicia rump state, probably unstable and full of terrorists. Thing is, this instability and terrorism would in very large part be aimed at Europe and be buffer state - but on the other hand, Russia might be up for the challenge anyway since no one would want such buffer state at the borders, and Ukraine sowing terror across Europe is in the USA interest as well.
Also it all depends on how the war would end, since wars have nasty habits of not going according to plans.
Obviously I don’t like a nazi Ukraine. I understand perfectly that it’s not a sovereign country. Since 2014 it’s been ruled like a US colony. But I still believe that Russia coming in and chopping up the country as they see fit, and leaving the rest as a failed state is far from an ideal solution.
It is not Russia that is leaving Ukraine in a destroyed state. It is NATO that is using it like a condom for their proxy war fetishes.
Thanks someome needed to say that. Last time I said people here are a little too much into Putin (he is an anticommunist afterall) I got downvoted to oblivion for some reason
Not supporting NATO or the Ukranazis, but still, things like this makes me think people are forgeting what the critical in critical support mean.
It is a difficult line to tread. But Putin is not a moron or a deranged megalomaniac like people like to claim, and I am worried that any neutral explanation or overview of he or the things the Russian state does are (or have been) viewed as uncritical support. Every time we discuss something related to Russia, we should not need to add a thousand caveats about how actually horrible they all are or have to defensively retreat into potentially Russophobic territory just to make positions known. Things are nuanced, yes, but I am worried that dialogue will sort of get lost in the sauce of making sure everyone is on the same page about how bad Putin is.
I guess to say, I don’t see the uncritical support too much. I see a very small amount of Z type comments and such, but most of these seem to be from comrades literally in or from the global south who view the SMO as (insert a thousand geopolitical explanations of what it actually is) the attempted liberation of an oppressed ethnic minority. “Comrade Putin?” comments are still usually made only sardonically. Putin being right on some things boggles the mind of some comrades, surely, but if they believe Putin might be a closet commie or what have you they’re usually corrected by more knowledgeable comrades on the site.
It’s not exactly the same, but take the Iran-Saudi Arabia peace negotiations. We love to see it. China is leading the way. When reporting on this, is it necessary to incessantly reiterate our disdain for the Saudi regime or Iran’s revolutionary government, to recount all of their shortcomings so we all know that it’s still bad news? I wouldn’t personally think so, even though I think it’s important to remain cognizant of the material issues those nations face. Peace is good and should be celebrated.
Well said comrade . 🫡👍🏼
I agree with many things but as the original comment pointed out, Russia anexing Ukraine is not based. I’m from the global south too, my country is part of the BRICS so when I point out these things is not because I need to reiterate that Russia is bad all the time nor that Putin is crazy (he is not) or because of Russophobia. Its because I feel like people are praising things they shouldnt
Fair point.