Hey, comrades. I am new to lemmygrad and find it odd that there are so many marxist-leninist defending a war of agression started by an oligarch, possibly the richest man in the world. I get that you want to say that NATO is a source of evil on the global stage, but in this particular case you are defending Putin, a warlord, who has invaded many of his neighbouring countries and has stated plans to continue his campaign for megalomanial reasons.
No war but class war. Enabling an autocrat fascist oligarch does not do anything to counter the bad stuff done by NATO and the community should take a firm stand against the use of war for the sake of satisfying the dreams of a tyrant.
This is not a troll post or anything to that extent. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I think it needed to be said.
See: The Donbas from 2014-2022
Their evil oligarchs, our billionaires (they are all bourgeois). But really, Putin is less characterized by owning the means of production than by treading water among a host of competing bourgeois interests.
lmfao
Is it not?
Where? For doing what?
Google, what is a warlord?
Putin is just a (weird) dude. He doesn’t do any invading. The Russian Federation has seized territory from 2 neighbors in recent history, and both have their origins in response to NATO aggressions. The idea that this is all just one dude who wants more land or fighting is ridiculous.
Who cares what he says (though I don’t even know what you’re referring to)? Unless you’re living in Russia his rhetoric doesn’t really affect you and, as a liberal politician, it’s not going to match the actions or motivations of the ruling class.
I agree with the sentiment but in this particular framing it’s letting The West off the hook.
In the context of Ukraine, does that mean you support the status quo in The Donbas up to 2022? That’s an ethnic cleansing led by neo-Nazis and other fascists, particularly neo-Bandyerites, and with resistance gets oversimplified as a civil war. Minsk and Minsk II, i.e. the diplomatic paths, were never followed by The West, they just turned up the violence and funded and supplied those fascists.
Invasion by Russia was the intent of The West. They got what they wanted - a harder split between Russia and EU countries. And they were continuing to push across red lines to do it until something gave. What do you think Russia should have done?
Enabling how?
Liberal Great Man theory from a non-material perspective. If leaders of capitalist countries go against the wishes of the ruling class, they get isolated and, if necessary, murdered. This war happened with the input and strategy of many sober experts in the liberal order of Russusn Federation leadership. This is a country, not a fantasy novel.
This community does take an anti-war stance, but if you don’t understand the basic history and reasons why the war is happening you won’t be able to dole out blame or understand what outcomes are on the table right now.
Why did it need to be said? It is okay to not share opinions about something you haven’t spent much time learning about. We all have things we don’t know very well. I understand that there is a social normalization of having and sharing opinions before attaining knowledge, and socialists are hardly exempt from this, but it makes us, our discourse, and our ability to organize better if we can try to recognize snd combat that tendency.
Started by Putin or his group of bourgeois thugs is not important. It is done in their interest at the expense of the proletariat.
Yes it is.
I care about his rhetoric because many of the things he has said he would do, he has also done, some of which has been a tragedy for those bordering Russia. My post called supporting the war unsolidaric, and I still think it is. I think we should have solidarity for all people of the world, inside Russia, bordering Russia and everywhere else. The problem is people are dying unnecessarily for his groups capital gains and we should not be in support of that.
No, I think this is reductionist rhetoric from you. Putin is the head of government and no one ever rules alone, that goes without saying. Being head of government makes him an immediate symbol of the government he represents, that is kind of the point of being the head of anything. As such it is disingenuous to say that I talk about “great man” theory when I am indeed talking about the specific actions committed by a regime with him at the forefront. That being said, there is no way one can look at the politics of Russia and say that Putin is a weak leader. He holds much power and has much responsibility for what is going on.
I was not wrong when I considered this might be a controversial opinion here and I simply do not think it should be.
Okay but that describes every big decision made in a capitalist country. We moved from “started by an oligarch” to here.
Okay free to listen to the 1:10 ratio of signal to noise but you can get a more reliable idea of military biases from someone like Lavrov.
Your post is full of rhetoric that boils the war down to Putin and his whims. I’m describing your reductionism. It does not go without saying, it’s the predominant (mis)understanding spread in liberal media everywhere, and why psychologizing Putin is basically its own news topic at this point.
Your cowardly selective quoting is noted.