How are both of them “bad”? From a dialectically materialist standpoint, they serve(d) as barriers to liberal hegemony. Without Putin, we would lose our last chance at successful global revolution
What, do you actually think that Putin’s government will fall in a vacuum and suddenly be instantly and without bloodshed be replaced by a socialist state that will then magically and peacefully reunify all former Soviet territories and then NATO will suddenly cave in due to the power of peace and love and the whole world will suddenly turn into a stateless communist society? No, Russia would be seized and plundered by the West, and Belarus, which is borderline AES, will fall, and I think you remember what occurred in the 1990s, the last time that happened; Russian GDP fell so hard the male life expectancy dropped by 10 years. It was Putin who undid the economic devastation. Putin is not reliant on the support of the oligarchs, just look at how he imprisoned Khodorkovsky, for example, for speaking out against him on behalf of Western interests. His base is characterized by a general “united front” ATM of a wide range of political movements, including communists, and he has maintained the legacy of the Great Patriotic War whereas in Ukraine and in Latvia and elsewhere they are tearing down those monuments.
Think of the SMO as a shovel that hits the West at a 45 degree angle to get it to a place where the Chinese bulldozer can then ram straight into it and push it off a cliff. Putin does not need to be our perfect ally; his actions benefit us and that is what matters in the real world
I highly suggest reading Rainer Shea, he has some great articles on the nature of the Special Military Operation and its effects.
PS the woman in your PFP literally released a statement saying that when it came to Ukraine, Russia and North Korea were “in the same trench”
Russia invaded because of real security risks that any would the same in that situation. There was a western perpetrated fascist coup perpetrated next door overthrowing a neutral government. They were ethnic-cleansing Russians in the East. They claimed they wouldn’t move NATO an inch eastward and ended up trying to move it to its border.
On the Taliban, yes we should support them. Here’s a great article on it: https://annebonnypirate.org/2021/08/17/afghanistan-the-end-of-the-occupation/
Critical support doesn’t mean we agree with everything they say or do, we just see that they are a progressive force in a certain situation.
We don’t “religiously lick the boots of reactionary regimes.” We give critical support to leaders who oppose American hegemony and have improved the lives of their people.
Do we say Saddam Hussein deserved it because at some point he worked with the US to suppress communists and Kurds? No, we see that Iraq was most prosperous country in the Middle East and would have had far more political instability without him, and did after him when the US wrecked his country.
Do we maintain Muammar Qaddafi was a figure not to be praised in any way because he believed in the patriarchy and didn’t want to abolish private property? No, we see that under him Libya had extremely cheap food, water, housing, and electricity and would also make it easier for citizens to buy cars, start businesses and raise children. He funded the IRA and other national liberation groups. He also was planning on making a massive man made river which would help them get food self sufficiency and starting a Pan-African, Pan-Arab currency to help fight neoliberalism and US dollar hegemony.
If we only support movements that are “perfect” ideologically we are no better than the gonzalists. We must have solidarity with a plurality of progressive forces.
Yeah, you’re not engaging in good faith as nobody is doing what you’re saying they’re doing. You’re reacting to people who do not exist, while tearing down comrades who do.
There are people who agree with you likely on 98% of things here. We are not your enemy.
deleted by creator
How are both of them “bad”? From a dialectically materialist standpoint, they serve(d) as barriers to liberal hegemony. Without Putin, we would lose our last chance at successful global revolution
deleted by creator
What, do you actually think that Putin’s government will fall in a vacuum and suddenly be instantly and without bloodshed be replaced by a socialist state that will then magically and peacefully reunify all former Soviet territories and then NATO will suddenly cave in due to the power of peace and love and the whole world will suddenly turn into a stateless communist society? No, Russia would be seized and plundered by the West, and Belarus, which is borderline AES, will fall, and I think you remember what occurred in the 1990s, the last time that happened; Russian GDP fell so hard the male life expectancy dropped by 10 years. It was Putin who undid the economic devastation. Putin is not reliant on the support of the oligarchs, just look at how he imprisoned Khodorkovsky, for example, for speaking out against him on behalf of Western interests. His base is characterized by a general “united front” ATM of a wide range of political movements, including communists, and he has maintained the legacy of the Great Patriotic War whereas in Ukraine and in Latvia and elsewhere they are tearing down those monuments.
Think of the SMO as a shovel that hits the West at a 45 degree angle to get it to a place where the Chinese bulldozer can then ram straight into it and push it off a cliff. Putin does not need to be our perfect ally; his actions benefit us and that is what matters in the real world
I highly suggest reading Rainer Shea, he has some great articles on the nature of the Special Military Operation and its effects.
PS the woman in your PFP literally released a statement saying that when it came to Ukraine, Russia and North Korea were “in the same trench”
Belarus? AES?
They have maintained a very similar economy to the Soviet period and uphold their socialist history.
Damn, I thought Yugoslavia became capitalist during the war.
Wdym Belarus wasn’t in Yugoslavia
?
deleted by creator
You can’t see the difference between people fighting against US and for US, what else i can even add to that brutal selfown.
Russia invaded because of real security risks that any would the same in that situation. There was a western perpetrated fascist coup perpetrated next door overthrowing a neutral government. They were ethnic-cleansing Russians in the East. They claimed they wouldn’t move NATO an inch eastward and ended up trying to move it to its border. On the Taliban, yes we should support them. Here’s a great article on it: https://annebonnypirate.org/2021/08/17/afghanistan-the-end-of-the-occupation/ Critical support doesn’t mean we agree with everything they say or do, we just see that they are a progressive force in a certain situation.
Try to engage in good faith, please. You are being (mostly) approached in it.
deleted by creator
We don’t “religiously lick the boots of reactionary regimes.” We give critical support to leaders who oppose American hegemony and have improved the lives of their people. Do we say Saddam Hussein deserved it because at some point he worked with the US to suppress communists and Kurds? No, we see that Iraq was most prosperous country in the Middle East and would have had far more political instability without him, and did after him when the US wrecked his country. Do we maintain Muammar Qaddafi was a figure not to be praised in any way because he believed in the patriarchy and didn’t want to abolish private property? No, we see that under him Libya had extremely cheap food, water, housing, and electricity and would also make it easier for citizens to buy cars, start businesses and raise children. He funded the IRA and other national liberation groups. He also was planning on making a massive man made river which would help them get food self sufficiency and starting a Pan-African, Pan-Arab currency to help fight neoliberalism and US dollar hegemony. If we only support movements that are “perfect” ideologically we are no better than the gonzalists. We must have solidarity with a plurality of progressive forces.
Yeah, you’re not engaging in good faith as nobody is doing what you’re saying they’re doing. You’re reacting to people who do not exist, while tearing down comrades who do.
There are people who agree with you likely on 98% of things here. We are not your enemy.