/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

SLAVA UKRAINA!

Hot take: most of the ethnic conflicts in the post soviet space were casued by bolshevik policies

>>454209
Why bother with the totalitarian rhetoric, Russia is the one that is making Nato expansion halt.

>>454350
>>454354
There was little to no ethnic tension within the USSR, but when capitalism returned so did ethnic conflict. So i'm going with the conclusion that neither the bolsheviks nor the khrushchevites had anything to do with it. The capitalists are responsible for the problems that their system creates.

The "Nazis" in Ukraine are more anti-russian than actual Nazis. The de-naziifcation pretext for war is just as bullshit as WMD'. The correct side is the side of the workers who are being harmed the most by the war, whether they be Russian, Ukrainian, or western.

>>454209
Good Post Anon, but totalitarian as a word has been worn out into a simple pejorative.
It vaguely means "not liberal capitalism". There is no thought put into how totalizing a system is.

>>454350
>Hot take: most of the ethnic conflicts in the post soviet space were casued by bolshevik policies
Well the bolsheviks enforced democratic centralism, and the ban on factionalism, that suffocates potential ethnic tensions. The Soviet system also did not generate many ethnic tensions to begin with, because there were no economic incentives to make people hate each other. In capitalism there is money in stirring up ethno hatred.
The bolshevik policies were geared to work in the soviet system, and it did work in the Soviet system.
They were communists building a communist society so naturally they didn't think about compatibility with capitalism. They thought capitalism had already finished and was relegated to history.

The ethnic conflict in the post soviet space would not have happened if the Soviet Union had not been dissolved. Those deaths have to be attributed to the people that broke up the Soviet System, and failed to replace it with something that did not cause bloodshed. You can't put the blame on the bolsheviks. It's unreasonable to expect them to know such future events, but it is reasonable to expect the people that came after them to know the past and take that into account. Communists aren't responsible for failures that happen under capitalism.

>>455575
>The "Nazis" in Ukraine are more anti-russian than actual Nazis.
The "actual" Nazis wanted to genocide 60% of the slavic "subhumans"
The Nazis in the Ukraine "merely" want an ethnic cleansing of east Ukraine.
Both groups are equally as shit as people and deserving of getting bombed to meat-paste, but the original Nazis were technically more anti-Russian.

>The de-naziifcation pretext for war is just as bullshit as WMD
There were no WMDs but there are significant numbers of heavy armed fascists in Ukraine. So that comparison is not applicable.

>The correct side is the side of the workers who are being harmed the most by the war, whether they be Russian, Ukrainian, or western.
Class struggle is not an excuse to drop material analysis for simplistic both-side-ism.
We have to be honest, the Soviet Union would not have reacted any different if the US had regime-changed the Ukraine.

>Putin is justified in invading Ukraine because of Nazis in the government.
>Putin uses the fascist biker ganger "The Night Wolves" as his personal brown shirts.
Time to invade Russia?

>>455577
>lets start WW3
Lets face it the US started a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, but they miscalculated the strength of the Russian military and economy. Late stage empires with rotten institutions have a tendency to produce such fuck-ups.

At this point, I don't care who wins. I just want the war to be over with as few casualties as possible.

>>455576
>So that comparison is not applicable
No they both are bullshit justifications for war, your claim about "significant numbers of armed fascists" is also bullshit. Russian media didn't give a damn about these "fascist forces" until February 24th.
>Class struggle is not an excuse to drop material analysis for simplistic both-side-ism.
What the fuck do you mean "both-side-ism" workers across the globe have been hurt by the outbreak of war whether by the sanctions in Russia or the increase in gas prices also because of sanctions.
>We have to be honest, the Soviet Union would not have reacted any different if the US had regime-changed the Ukraine
The Soviet Union has not existed for decades and last time I checked.they were never a reactionary imperialist empire like Russia is today. Important to remember the Soviet Union did not invade the Nazis first the Nazis invaded them, Russia was in no danger from whatever "Nazi" boogyman you'll slurp up from Russian media. So whatever "Nazis" are in Ukraine they are the least of my worries, being able to afford gas and rent is what is on the people's mind.

>>455581
soviet union invaded finnish nazis though (anti-communist, 'whites')

>>455581
suck my dick, bitch

>>455585
Fuck you.

>>455590
seethe

>>455581
>Russian media didn't give a damn about these "fascist forces" until February
Lol the western media admitted that Ukraine had a Nazi problem until February.

>What the fuck do you mean "both-side-ism" workers across the globe have been hurt by the outbreak of war whether by the sanctions in Russia or the increase in gas prices also because of sanctions.
The war broke out 2014 when the US regime changed Ukraine. Lets face it the US started this shit.
And the US is also the one that is pushing these sanctions that are causing inflation.

>The Soviet Union has not existed for decades and last time I checked.they were never a reactionary imperialist empire like Russia is today.
The Soviets were much more active in deterring NATO aggression then the Russian federation, and they were not shy about dispensing military force. Russia is not an empire in the Marxist sense, because Russia is a predominantly commodity exporting country in the semi periphery of the imperial system.

>Russia was in no danger from whatever "Nazi" boogyman you'll slurp up from Russian media.
Russia actually lost the propaganda battle. This hole shit is a proxy war between Russia and the US, the Ukrainian fascists are the proxy forces of the US. Russia was in danger of the US setting up a NATO foothold in Ukraine. As a thorn in the side of Russia that could have weakened it to the point where Russia could risk balkanization. Think about the effect that Israel is having in the middle east, by acting as an US force proxy.

>Important to remember the Soviet Union did not invade the Nazis first the Nazis invaded them
The Soviet Union was busy setting up military production and was trying to postpone the outbreak of WW2 as much as they could. If they had the option to attack first that would have been the correct move, because that way Soviet territory and Soviet civilians would not have suffered so much devastation and casualties.

>So whatever "Nazis" are in Ukraine they are the least of my worries
They banned all 11 opposition parties in Ukraine, they hunted and killed many leftists in the previous 8 years, they broke Ukraine in 2 and fermented a huge civil war that resulted in 20k deaths. Now they're getting bombed to shit by the military industrial base that was originally set up by communists. The stakes for bystanders is that the CIA's Ukraine model has failed, it made the US empire loose a big geopolitical battle. That makes it slightly less likely that the big bourgeoisie will attempt to replicate this elsewhere.

>being able to afford gas and rent is what is on the people's mind.
Ask Washington and it's subordinated EU-Vassals to lift the self imposed resource embargo.
The sanction are coming from the west after all.
The big bourgeoisie in the imperial core wants to fight for hegemony and they are making you pay for it.

You aren't being affected by the "nazis" in Ukraine, what a worthless solidarity attempt.

>>455638
How did you get this from what OP was saying? lol.

>>455600
I read that Russian media reports on Nazism in Ukraine skyrocketed after February 24th, it's bullshit and nobody cares about it even if it was true.
>Lets face it the US started this shit.
And the US is also the one that is pushing these sanctions that are causing inflation
Okay how about fuck the US and Russia? no stance needed just screw them both.
>The Soviets were much more active in deterring NATO aggression then the Russian federation, and they were not shy about dispensing military force
The Soviet Union still does not exist anymore, Russia is not the Soviet Union
>Russia is not an empire
Yes it is and it is also imperialist and reactionary
>Russia was in danger of the US setting up a NATO foothold in Ukraine
No they weren't Ukraine was no where near to joining NATO when Russia invaded
>As a thorn in the side of Russia that could have weakened it to the point where Russia could risk balkanization
Are you Russian why do you care if Russia balkanizes, I certainly don't care
>If they had the option to attack first that would have been the correct move, because that way Soviet territory and Soviet civilians would not have suffered so much devastation and casualties
No it wouldn't have been the right move they had no reason to go to war with the Nazis, the Soviets would not have been able to push into the fascists anyway
>They banned all 11 opposition parties in Ukraine, they hunted and killed many leftists in the previous 8 years, they broke Ukraine in 2 and fermented a huge civil war that resulted in 20k deaths
I don't care (even if what you said were not lies) the working class wants affordable gas prices cheap food not airstrikes on fascists
>Ask Washington and it's subordinated EU-Vassals to lift the self imposed resource embargo.
The sanction are coming from the west after all.
The big bourgeoisie in the imperial core wants to fight for hegemony and they are making you pay for it
Yeah no shit. We can't stand up to our bosses and if we were to go against the state it would be a failure.
>>455639
It is useless to take a stance for or against the "Nazis" of Ukraine NATO America or Russia. It is even more irrational to take a stance against your own state, as an American yeah it would not be rational to be against America and be for Russis, China. Standing up to our bosses we work for, the state we live within is our focus. Well we aren't even good at doing that so what point is there to be against or for any other state?

>>455640
I am pro-revleutionary.

>>455640
>I read that Russian media reports
You base your opinion on western mainstream media disinformation ?
>nobody cares about it even if it was true.
Well i do care about truth, you on the other hand, seem to be invalidating your opinion.
>Okay how about fuck the US and Russia? no stance needed just screw them both.
The Us is imperialist but Russia is not, they are not the same. US foreign policy caused this war.
>Russia is not the Soviet Union
Yes, Russia is more patient and restrained. The Soviets would have smoked Ukraine in 2014 when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government.
>Yes it is and it is also imperialist and reactionary
Russia has a mostly commodity exporting economy, and it is in the semi-periphery of the imperial system, that means it is not imperialists in Marxist terms.
>No they weren't Ukraine was no where near to joining NATO when Russia invaded
Not officially but nato integration of the Ukrainian military began 2014. This is very much a proxy war between the US and Russia.
>why do you care if Russia balkanizes,
1. Russia is not neo-liberal, there is state control of big industries and state investment into industrial development, and compared to Russia in the 90s it is a big improvement for workers. If Russia were to be balkanized the resulting Russian fragment states would not be strong enough to resist US power and would go back to 90s level brutal neoliberalism. That means that the Russian state is a progressive force. Even if you are just a chauvinist from the core and only care about the workers in the core, if Russian workers are treated better, that also lowers the pressure for workers in the core, and they will not have to accept worse conditions.
2. Anti imperialist logic:
Russia being a much weaker capitalist power than the US, has to work with Socialist countries, While the US being the big hegemon is busy trying to stomp out everything to the left of neoliberalism. Look for example in the Crimea region and the Russia allied Donetsk and Lugansk People's republic there are communists and social democrats in political offices, while in West-Ukraine Communists are killed or in hideouts, and all the other opposition parties are banned.
The worst thing that ever happened to the international socialist movement was having a giant capitalist power reigning over the planet unopposed.
>No it wouldn't have been the right move they had no reason to go to war with the Nazis,
Fascism is the arm of the most reactionary imperial finance bourgeoisie. The big bourgeoisie of that era wanted a Nazi Germany to throw it at the Soviet Union, in the hopes of destroying it in a war. (they probably wanted to destroy both Germany and the Soviets, to be honest).
It's a reasonable assumption that any socialist country faced with hard fascism on it's border will inevitably be invaded, so it's better to go on the offensive so you can set the terms of the conflict.
>the Soviets would not have been able to push into the fascists anyway
that is true the Soviets weren't fully ready yet when ww2 started, but lets say that hypothetically the Soviet revolution happened much earlier and they were ready, then it would have been very prudent to invade Germany the moment the capitalists and some left-over feudal aristocrats installed Hitler in power. That would have resulted in a much shorter and less bloodier war.
>I don't care
You don't care that West-Ukrainian Leftist were persecuted ?
You lack international solidarity.
>the working class wants affordable gas prices cheap food not airstrikes on fascists
There won't be any affordable gas/food prices as long as the US is able to impose sanctions.
The ruling class in the US thinks like feudal elites, they want to starve the world (including US citizens) of food and energy as blackmail to get their way, and it won't stop unless somebody makes it stop. By the way the airstrikes that are raining down on (not exclusively) fascists in Ukraine are being conducted with mostly Soviet weapons and Soviet derived weapons, produced by the industrial base that Socialists initially set up. And you would be kidding your self if socialists would not have smashed a US puppet regime that collaborates with fascists.
Anybody that is serious about creating actually existing peace, talks about neutral countries between power-blocks.
>Yeah no shit. We can't stand up to our bosses and if we were to go against the state it would be a failure.
I'm not sure i understand this, but i guess that yes it would be great if we could prevent the bourgeois factions that want to start wars including economic wars (which is what sanctions really are) from wielding any kind of state power.
There is no State (with a capital S) that wants anything, there are factions within the state that have objectives.
You aren't going against The State by opposing sanctions and war, you are just going against a specific faction.
I doubt that western leftist currently have the numbers, too many people are still stuck in imperial delusions of liberal world hegemony being a vehicle for any kind of progress. I think the rest of the world is going to break the US's sanctions-war mechanisms long before we get our shit together.
If you are a rightist social democrat that thinks they can get social democracy in the core by going along with imperialism, you are a moron. The imperialists are using up the resources and surplus of the core to pay for militarism and sanctions-war, they steal wealth from workers by inflation and austerity to pay for imperialism. If you want to improve the conditions for workers, that is going to come from reducing imperialism.
If you think that it is even remotely plausible the US will regain it's primacy and subjugate the hole world and all the workers in the core will become labor aristocrats, you are delusional. Look at the chaos they have caused when they tried to engage in "big power competition" against Russia. These people suck at their own game, they spend 8 years provoking a proxy war with a large industrial power while they de-industrialized the economy at home.
If they go against China who is a true industrial colossus without peers the consequences will shatter the west. They will continue to suck even if everybody in the core fell into line and repeated their propaganda. These people live in a distorted reality bubble that is so dense that even Russian artillery couldn't shatter their illusions of grandeur. These people will drag the west into the abyss.

For basic political literacy, you have to oppose anything that goes against your interests. If Sanctions cause your energy cost to go up and inflation is eating your spending power, you have to be opposed to it and everything that comes with it. This is the reality of politics in a capitalist system.

>>455672
>Russia being a much weaker capitalist power than the US, has to work with Socialist countries
There aren't any socialist countries.

>>454358
>Why bother with the totalitarian rhetoric, Russia is the one that is making Nato expansion halt.
Man, this aged so poorly.

>>454209
>an agreement of not moving "one inch to the east" was part of the compromise between the USA and the USSR.
Yeah, this is straight up not true, lol.

>>456943
Are you historically illiterate?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/01/bionic-mosquito/not-one-inch-eastward/

>>456946
This is a better breakdown. These assurances weren't all that strong, and they were all given before the USSR collapsed. The assurances were given to make a pathway for the USSR to be integrated into Europe. It's a little dumb to expect the promise was still good after they collapsed.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

>>456946
Yeah, what is the text of auch an agreement? What is it called, and who signed it? What's that? No such documents exist? Guess you're ahit out of luck. Also, the not one inch thing referred to bases in East Germany, not NATO membership. NATO open door policy goes against what you are claiming.

>>456948
No that is revisionist history. He commitment was assured by many us leaders and NATO Allis at the time. This is utter cope from a revisionist faggot interpretation of history. Noam Chomsky has elaborated to n this ad infinitum

>>456950
>Lol I tricked you so now I am in the right

Smooth brain logic

>>456948
Just realized this ngga linked the literal NSA LOL

>>456948
>nsa archive
lol no way.

>>456962
>>456954
It's an archive of NSA documents gotten via the Freedom of Information Act dumbasses.

>>456964
Ok and so what? I'm so still a narrative crafted by the NSA retard

>>456970
No it doesn't nimrod, the public narrative was that there were no assurances that NATO expansion would halt.
Do you not understand the difference between a cover story that the government tells the public, and the actual things it's doing and saying.

>>456972
Except no there wasn't not j the Russian side retard. You're saying "well it's your fault for trusting me!" To justify betrayal lmao. This is a real actually glowing uyghur

>>456952
Nobody tricked them. A verbal promise from one particular individual does not make an agreement, especially when NATO has an official policy that contradicts that that official is saying. I'm sorry that soviet leaders were so fucking retarded.

>>457024
I don't really see how you can claim it's betrayal for former SSRs to do as they please. If anything, this shows we're very kind to the former USSR. We've let half of it into NATO, at their request, of course.

>>457101
Actually a verbal promise is held in much higher standing between fucking nations and countries. You are acting like this is some kind of verbal promise to pay back a loan of twenty dollars and not an agreement not to expand national borders between nations. You're full of shit and liar and I spit on you.

>>457117
>Actually a verbal promise is held in much higher standing between fucking nations and countries.
Actually, you're just making shit up. People put things on paper when they expect it to actually be binding. They especially do this, when an active policy of the organization they are trying to restrict officially contradicts the verbal agreement.
> You are acting like this is some kind of verbal promise to pay back a loan of twenty dollars and not an agreement not to expand national borders between nations
First, there was no such agreement. You're just making it up. The US pledged not to put bases in East Germany, and it didn't. Get over it.
>You're full of shit and liar and I spit on you.
You're mad, and I don't care what you pretend to do. Sneed.

>>457123
No retard. This isn't an agreement between two uyghurs exchanging money in return for drugs. This is an agreement between world leaders which obviously means more. You are just a retard and trying to excuse the behavior of the united states. What's next are you gonna excuse bombing yugoslavia? The on;y one making excuses and being contrived is you retard.

>>457124
>No retard. This isn't an agreement between two uyghurs exchanging money in return for drugs. This is an agreement between world leaders which obviously means more.
Can you name these so-called leaders? Because this is basically a secretary making assurances that directly contradict stated positions of NATO policy. Furthermore, the agreement was about bases in East Germany, and was made to the USSR, not the Russian Federation.
>You are just a retard and trying to excuse the behavior of the united states
The United States didn't force anyone to join NATO. Russia did by being a belligerent state. Russia could just not invade anyone.
>What's next are you gonna excuse bombing yugoslavia?
My grandfather is Albanian, so yes. Fuck Serbia.
>he on;y one making excuses and being contrived is you retard.
I'm not the one relying on a misinterpretation of a verbal agreement by someone who doesn't run the US or NATO. Cope and seethe.

>>457124
>>457140
But if we're going to go on about reneging on agreements, why not call Russia out on this as well? They did, after all sign the Paris Charter. What does it say under the Security section?
>In this context we fully recognize the freedom of States to
choose their own security arrangements.
https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/0/6/39516.pdf
What about the NATO-Russia founding act?
>respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents;
https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm
What about the Budapest Memorandum? You know, the reason why Ukraine has no nuclear weapons?
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
For the Russian fanatics, every accusation is a confession.

>>457247
Retard that's exactly what I meant

>>457248
Oh, you did mean that? Are you sure you should be calling someone else a retard?

>>457251
If you think a random drug deal is as important as the on goings of two world super powers you might be retarded y s.

>>457255
I suggest you read the greentext again, shit-for-brains.

>>457256
Ok what am just I missing? Do you think official state in goings are so relaxed they don't need documentation?

>>457257
You're missing obvious sarcasm. Are you a non-native English speaker by any chance? The joke is that the other anon responded to a comment that binding agreements need to be put on paper by claiming that two world leaders verbally agreeing to something is binding, and not simply a drug deal. The clown poster then proceeded to make the joke, that the other anon had implied that only drug dealers would need paperwork, unlike world leaders, who are known to not stoop to such depths for binding agreements. That's the joke. Congratulations, you have sucked the humor out of a pretty good dig at someone.

>>457258
Well uyghurs

>>457140
>My grandfather is Albanian
You're an American, defending the actions of the United States. At least be honest with yourself. At least you didn't call yourself a socilaist, communist or anarchist, so you have that going for you, lib.

>>457261
Don't care. Didn't ask, plus, you['re a Serb. Me Albanian boy, fuck your whole family complete.