[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1712872509550.jpg ( 197.84 KB , 1280x720 , finnish border guards at c….jpg )

 No.480381

Finland’s right-wing government announced last week the indefinite closure of its 1,300-kilometre border with Russia. An initial decision had been taken last November by the conservative National Coalition Party (NCP)-led government to temporarily close border crossings after a small number of asylum seekers crossed into Finland from Russia.

The four-party coalition government, which includes the far-right Finns Party, is seeking with the move to provoke Russia and demonstrate its determination to clamp down on refugees. After Finland joined NATO last April, becoming the military alliance’s 31st member, its long land border with Russia and close proximity to St. Petersburg transformed Finland into a frontline state in the US-NATO imperialist war on Russia.

Finland’s entry into NATO, following the US-provoked Russian invasion of Ukraine, was overseen by a Social Democrat-led government. Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s coalition lost support due to sweeping attacks on the working class and embrace of pro-war policies, and was defeated in parliamentary elections also held in April 2023. When the NCP unveiled what is widely described as Finland’s most right-wing government since World War II, a central plank of the program was a clampdown on asylum seekers and refugees.

The Finns Party, which has ties to outright fascist forces, has long scapegoated foreigners for the country’s problems.

NCP Prime Minister Petteri Orpo placed the Interior Ministry under the control of the Finns Party. Finns leader Riikka Purra enthused, “I am delighted that together with our negotiating partners we have agreed on an immigration package that can rightly be called a paradigm shift.” Among the measures proposed was a halving of the refugees accepted by Finland from the UN refugee agency from 1,050 to 500 per year, and the creation of lower rates of social welfare for refugees and immigrants. Purra boasted that temporary residency permits for refugees would be “withdrawn if the person is on holiday in their country of origin.”

In the months following the coming to power of the new coalition, from August to December 2023, approximately 1,300 asylum seekers crossed the border from Russia, an increase from an average of one per day before then. Interviews conducted with asylum seekers who successfully made the trek after paying hefty fees to smugglers underscore that they chose the route because it was the easiest way into “fortress Europe,” which, thanks to the European Union’s inhuman refugee policies, has led to the drowning of thousands in the Mediterranean in recent years.

The EU has not only made it virtually impossible to cross safely via the short sea route from north Africa or Turkey, but also funds criminal gangs in Libya and dictatorships like Egypt’s el-Sisi’s to prevent refugees from even attempting to reach the continent.

This did not stop lurid stories in the media, hyped by the international press, about an alleged campaign of “hybrid warfare” directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The fact that a fascistic party’s programme was being implemented was of no concern to top EU officials like EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

During a meeting in Stockholm with Orpo and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in January, von der Leyen declared, “Most recently, Finland suffered from instrumentalisation of migrants orchestrated by Russia. This is yet another form of hybrid warfare. This requires a clear and determined response. Finland has acted decisively. And you can rely on the European Union to support your efforts.”

The Finnish government’s vicious anti-immigrant programme is combined with savage austerity measures to pay for Finland’s massive military build-up. Orpo is committed to imposing €6 billion in austerity measures during his first term. “We cannot put our heads in the sand. There is no more money,” he claimed last June.

In fact, there is plenty of money for Finland’s military, which completed in 2023 the largest single purchase in its history to acquire 64 F-35 fighter jets from US-based Lockheed Martin, at a cost of €8.4 billion. The purchase drove the 2023 defence budget up by 36 percent year-on-year, the highest single-year increase in over six decades.

Finland’s 2024 defence budget rose by 5 percent from the previous year to about €6.2 billion, or 2.3 percent of its GDP. Given its small size, with a population of 5.5 million, Finland has backed the far-right Ukrainian regime since the US-provoked Russian invasion in February 2022 with a substantial €2.9 billion in support. On April 3, newly elected President Alexander Stubb, who has significant powers over Finland’s foreign policy, signed a long-term bilateral defence agreement with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev. Stubb was elected president in February following a campaign dominated by pro-war, anti-Russia hysteria.

In December 2023, Finland finalised a defence cooperation agreement (DCA) with the United States, which gives Washington unimpeded access to several military bases in Finland and the ability to pre-position military supplies for major operations. This is part of a huge military build-up throughout the Nordic region, all of whose countries are now NATO members. After Sweden formally joined NATO last month, Russia is now confronted with hostile adversaries on all sides in the strategic Baltic Sea.

read more:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/04/11/chqt-a11.html
>>

 No.480383

>In December 2023, Finland finalised a defence cooperation agreement (DCA) with the United States, which gives Washington unimpeded access to several military bases in Finland and the ability to pre-position military supplies for major operations. This is part of a huge military build-up throughout the Nordic region, all of whose countries are now NATO members. After Sweden formally joined NATO last month, Russia is now confronted with hostile adversaries on all sides in the strategic Baltic Sea.
Russia just can't stop winning kek.

Why did they invade Ukraine again, remind me please?
>>

 No.480384

>>480383
>Russia just can't stop winning kek.
Yes pretty much, their adversaries are wasting surplus that could be used to grow their economy and improve public services, on ballooning military budgets. Finland has breadlines, maybe they can rig the new jet-fighters to power ovens for baking bread, i hear jet-exhaust is high temperature.

>Why did they invade Ukraine again remind me please?

The Nuland neocon gang ordered a CIA regime change invasion of Ukraine because they thought that a vassalized Ukraine could be rammed into Russia to make it balkanize. They thought sanctions would damage the Russian economy, it damaged the European economy instead.
I guess the short answer is the neocons terribly suck at Geo-political competition.
>>

 No.480385

>>480383
>Why did they invade Ukraine again, remind me please?
I differ from the author of the article, and my take is that there were a few reasons. In no particular order:
1. A genuine disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. Some folks are eager to overlook this one, but Putin has openly expressed that he doesn't see Ukraine as a separate nation, and a lot of Russian nationalists are probably with him on this.
2. Genuine concern over potential NATO expansion and US tomfuckery in Ukraine. The CIA was there and was helping the Ukrainian nationalists, and 99% they contributed to the conditions which resulted in the Euromaidan shit. NATO was playing a game with Ukraine where they wouldn't let them in, but kept getting favors out of Ukraine anyway. NATO wasn't supposed to even expand to the extent that it did, and Russia generally sees it as hostile, and this isn't unreasonable.
3. The economic and strategic incentive to invade for land/natural resources. This is basic shit.
4. Concern over the ongoing war in this bordering country. This one is sort of two-way because Russia was simultaneously backing Russian separatists, which was actively making the conflict worse. The Ukrainian gov't still ended up doing some bad shit, though.

There were predictable defense reasons that Russia invaded, but also it was a stupid fucking move and a huge part of the basis is open chauvinism. If Ukraine had actually been a member of NATO, Russia would not invaded, but both NATO (representing the interests of mainly the US, but also the EU) and Russia pretty much see Ukraine as a chew toy to fight over so NATO just did this "not touching you!" bullshit which Russia (rightfully) read as provocation and stupidly took the bait on. Although from the perspective of Russian leadership, it probably wasn't a stupid choice - it has strengthened Russia, so admittedly I'm saying it was stupid from my perspective as a pleb who thinks war is stupid and that telling a bunch of young men they'll be "greeted as liberators" (a Bush move Putin essentially copped for the 2022 invasion) when their tanks roll in is moronic negligence.
>>

 No.480393

>>480385
>1. A genuine disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. Some folks are eager to overlook
People in Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk declared them selves as independent republics via referenda that international observers validated as legitimate. The sovereignty of those states got disregarded as well. In the case of the Luhansk and Donetsk republics the Ukrainians shelled them with mortars. So try not to overlook that, or you're a "Somefolks" too.
>3. The economic and strategic incentive to invade for land/natural resources.
Russians don't lack land/natural resources, they're not able to exploit more than a fraction of what they got already, there were no economic incentives, only strategic ones
>If Ukraine had actually been a member of NATO
It would never have gotten to that point. Ukrainian attempts of entering NATO would always result in a big war. Insinuating that a larger Nato would improve the chances for peace is not realistic.
>NATO (representing the interests of mainly the US, but also the EU)
Nato doesn't represent EU interests anymore.
<They took the bait
The current leadership of Russia represents the faction that was the most western-friendly, that was the most likely to chose diplomacy in conflicts with the west. The other 2 factions are the Russian nationalists and Communists/soviet-socdems, who would have conquered all of Ukraine in 2014 after the CIA color revolution, and would at present be busy "chewing" on the Baltic states (to your use your vernacular). The Russian communists think that WW2 never ended, that Nato = Third Reich, and that it's presently occupying Soviet Territory. The Russian nationalists go even further back in history and want an even more aggressive foreign policy. You're analysis fails to account for the fact that the Russians held off on military force for nearly a decade.

I tend to agree that true victory is when there's no war, and everybody lives pleasant peaceful lives, but that means frustrating the neocon war schemes. They low key invade countries, fund, arm and train groups with fascist proximity. That creates a low level internal conflict until it escalates into a full war. Sometimes the countries they target function well enough and the result is their hostile projects getting foiled. However countries are not always able to withstand this type of invasion, like in Ukraine. What then, what's the elegant solution where people don't die and stuff doesn't get destroyed ?
>>

 No.480399

>>480393
I don't think Crimea was ever interested in independence. They went directly to a referendum on incorporating with Russia when they saw the writing on the wall after that bus massacre of anti-Maidan protestors driving home to Crimea.
>>

 No.480400

>>480399
That is probably true, however they were never given the Chance.
>>

 No.480401

>>480400
Ukraine quashed their attempted independence first so I'm not going to shed any tears about Russia supposedly not doing the same.
>>

 No.480402

>>480401
>Ukraine quashed their attempted independence first
that was what i was referring too
>>

 No.480413

>>480401
When was said attempt made? I don't think Crimea ever opted for independence like the Donbass oblasts did. Crimean residents understood how strategically important Crimea was to Russia and instead appealed directly to incorporation in the Russian Federation.
>>

 No.480423

>>480413
Crimean residents understood they were going to get terrorized by the Banderite faction in Ukraine if they didn't seek protection from a big power. The Donbass oblasts found that out the hard way, they got shelled with artillery during the Ukraine 2014-2022 civil war with 14 thousand people dead.

They didn't have the option for independence, they could either choose to be discriminated second class citizens in Ukraine, have their home turned into a civil-war-zone, or join the Russian federation where they'd be equal citizens, which is less than full independence, but still better than the other 2 options.

Obviously the US and EU could have offered to recognize Crimean independence and offer protection, but that didn't happen, hence why the Russians got it. To be fair the Russians also offered significant economic investment in exchange for using the Sevastopol port, so for Crimean's joining the Russian federation also came with rising economic prosperity.
>>

 No.480505

>>480393
>People in Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk declared them selves as independent republics via referenda that international observers validated as legitimate. The sovereignty of those states got disregarded as well. In the case of the Luhansk and Donetsk republics the Ukrainians shelled them with mortars. So try not to overlook that, or you're a "Somefolks" too.
If a part of China voted to instead be part of Japan, that would probably be disregarded by China, too. The idea that nation states have some sort of duty to let neighboring states have their territory if a large enough faction within that territory supports it just has no honest basis, and no serious leader would honestly support it, Putin included when it comes to anything currently within the borders of the Russian Federation. Legally, there was no mechanism for independence in Ukraine whereby a single region could hold a vote and break off without checking with the rest of the country first.

Wrt the shelling, that only happened after Russian separatists in that region started taking over buildings. All of the aggression by Ukraine against the Russian separatists, which I do not overlook nor pretend wasn't criminally excessive in the case of the shelling, would have been avoided if Russian separatists didn't start taking over shit and threatening to carve off pieces of Ukraine's territory, which they did quite quickly. All of Ukraine's anxieties that the separatists were Russian-backed were pretty much validated when Russia annexed Crimea.

>Russians don't lack land/natural resources, they're not able to exploit more than a fraction of what they got already, there were no economic incentives, only strategic ones


Crimea has an important port, and the US doesn't lack land or natural resources, either. To say that countries which are already rich don't consider how controlling more territory could enrich them further prior to invading other countries seems odd, if that's really what you're implying.

>It would never have gotten to that point.

This is true!
>Ukrainian attempts of entering NATO would always result in a big war. Insinuating that a larger Nato would improve the chances for peace is not realistic.
I agree, but only for the reasons I said; NATO had no interest in actually letting Ukraine in, they just wanted to use Ukraine, and having Ukraine jump through a bunch of hoops which would provoke Russia faster than Ukraine could get in seems like it was deliberate.

>Nato doesn't represent EU interests anymore.

Does the EU even represent EU interests anymore?

>The current leadership of Russia represents the faction that was the most western-friendly, that was the most likely to chose diplomacy in conflicts with the west. The other 2 factions are the Russian nationalists and Communists/soviet-socdems, who would have conquered all of Ukraine in 2014 after the CIA color revolution, and would at present be busy "chewing" on the Baltic states (to your use your vernacular). The Russian communists think that WW2 never ended, that Nato = Third Reich, and that it's presently occupying Soviet Territory. The Russian nationalists go even further back in history and want an even more aggressive foreign policy. You're analysis fails to account for the fact that the Russians held off on military force for nearly a decade.

I'm not sure if that's actually an accurate description of Russian Communists; the description of the nationalists is accurate afaik. Russian socialists seem far less united in chauvinism, like don't a number of them represent the anti-war movement to the extent it exists? They don't seem to be as monolithic as you're making out, but I could be wrong.

And no, Russia didn't hold back on military force for a decade; it invaded quite quickly in 2014. Everyone who wrote off the invasion of Crimea as a one-off not-a-big-deal event turned out to be totally wrong when they thought Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine's territory again in 2022. Russia was only illegally holding that much of Ukraine's previous territory for a decade prior to the 2nd invasion, striking immediately and then striking again a decade later doesn't somehow nullify the first strike.

>I tend to agree that true victory is when there's no war, and everybody lives pleasant peaceful lives, but that means frustrating the neocon war schemes. They low key invade countries, fund, arm and train groups with fascist proximity. That creates a low level internal conflict until it escalates into a full war. Sometimes the countries they target function well enough and the result is their hostile projects getting foiled. However countries are not always able to withstand this type of invasion, like in Ukraine. What then, what's the elegant solution where people don't die and stuff doesn't get destroyed ?


This is a good question, and I think it's the right question to ask. From a US perspective, the most useful thing to do is to say it's our fault, and reorganize our system so we don't have these stupid foreign projects. I make no apologies for Russian leadership, but my country shouldn't be fucking around in other countries like that… which is a great understatement.
>>

 No.480511

>>480505
>Legally, there was no mechanism for independence in Ukraine whereby a single region could hold a vote and break off without checking with the rest of the country first.
Don't bother going there, because legally speaking the Soviet Union was never dissolved since a legally binding popular vote decided to maintain it, and then the entire legal basis of the post 1991 Ukrainian state goes poof. If you go back to pre-soviet times, Donbass and Crimea were part of Russia, and in that case Russia just liberated fellow citizens from a illegal occupation. You could pretend that legal history started in 1991, but i guess that the Crimeans and Donbassians can pretend that legal history started in 2014.

I will not pretend to understand how this works, but it very much appears to be the case that If a large enough part of a society votes it self independent via a referendum, that's usually what happens.

There is the matter that neither the European Union nor the United States offered official recognition of statehood for Crimea or the republics in the Donbass. I think the Russians bet on the right horse, the neocon faction in our governments backed the wrong horse. I would advise against playing the legitimacy game because Crimea had a orderly and peaceful referendum, while the other side had a big bloodbath caused by snipers murdering over hundred people in a chaotic upheaval.
>>

 No.480513

>>480505
>I agree, but only for the reasons I said; NATO had no interest in actually letting Ukraine in, they just wanted to use Ukraine, and having Ukraine jump through a bunch of hoops which would provoke Russia faster than Ukraine could get in seems like it was deliberate.
I'm not sure what the neocon plan B was. They intended to provoke a war and that's what happened. If they had not gotten their war, they would likely have "Nato-fied" Ukraine, begin installing Nato military bases, and eventually the result is war again. So this argument boils down to Russia should have waited until their targets fly the blue-white flag instead of the blue-yellow flag.
It seems the blue-white version of this war would have been fought with more destructive weapons, so the situation could have been worse.
>>

 No.480519

>>480511
This is why I think a more consistent position is always to side with the principle of self-determination for people who live in a given region. Only very powerful states have the ability to subvert this, but that doesn't make them right.
>>

 No.480615

>>480511
>Don't bother going there, because legally speaking the Soviet Union was never dissolved since a legally binding popular vote decided to maintain it, and then the entire legal basis of the post 1991 Ukrainian state goes poof.
I've heard people say something like this, but the last time I looked for what it's referencing, I didn't find it. Source?

>If you go back to pre-soviet times, Donbass and Crimea were part of Russia, and in that case Russia just liberated fellow citizens from a illegal occupation.

If you go back far enough, Palestine was a Jewish kingdom. This is not a very good argument. There are like 6 present-day countries with territory which was part of Prussia a hundred+ years ago.

>You could pretend that legal history started in 1991, but i guess that the Crimeans and Donbassians can pretend that legal history started in 2014.

Is Donbas even mostly Russian? Iirc that's pretty contested.

>I will not pretend to understand how this works, but it very much appears to be the case that If a large enough part of a society votes it self independent via a referendum, that's usually what happens.

Well, Chechnya did it and look where they are now.

>There is the matter that neither the European Union nor the United States offered official recognition of statehood for Crimea or the republics in the Donbass. I think the Russians bet on the right horse, the neocon faction in our governments backed the wrong horse. I would advise against playing the legitimacy game because Crimea had a orderly and peaceful referendum, while the other side had a big bloodbath caused by snipers murdering over hundred people in a chaotic upheaval.

Crimea had that referendum after Russia invaded. Prior to that, the previous referendums had shown less support for Russian annexation by differences of 10-20%. Even the final vote, after the Russian military had come in, was lower than the percentage on the Chechen sovereignty referendum in 1991. And prior to 2014, it looks like the most recent previous Crimean referendums had been hovering around 65%, why did it shoot up after the Russian military marched in?
>>

 No.480616

>>480513
I doubt that Russia would have invaded in Ukraine had actually been allowed to join NATO. Plan B was totally unnecessary. Russia saw potential NATO-ification as a provocation, and the neocons were shooting to provoke & probably never intended to actually let Ukraine in. It's the equivalent of giving a child a plastic knife and telling him to go stab a lion and then just letting the lion maul him.
>>

 No.480617

>>480615
>Russia invaded Crimea!
Not this idiotic shit again. Newsflash: Russia had leased their single most important naval base in Sevastopol for the entirety of Ukraine's independence starting in the '90s. In other words, there were Russian troops in Crimea for decades. Russian troops didn't magically appear in Crimea when Maidan neocon propagandists decided it was convenient to acknowledge them. Westerners who don't know anything about Ukraine are the only ones ignorant enough to fall for this stupid argument.

You're also totally wrong about the broad support for independence in their referendum. It was completely overwhelming at around 95% with a high turnout (putting it above, not below, the Chechen sovereignty referendum you're referencing), with the exit polls predicting a few percentage even higher than that (in case some snake wants to start an argument about election fraud).

>why did it shoot up after 2014 when the Russian military marched in

You don't suppose it has anything to do with a coup government in 2014 immediately acting with hostility towards Russians and Crimea being an overwhelmingly Russian constituency?
>>

 No.480618

>>480615
>Is Donbas even mostly Russian? Iirc that's pretty contested.
Contested by whom? Donetsk and Lugansk are overwhelmingly Russian, it's Zaporizhzhia and Kherson that have more mixed constituencies.
>>

 No.480620

>>480616
>I doubt that Russia would have invaded in Ukraine had actually been allowed to join NATO.
Yes that is true, they did try to join in 2000, and were met with a smattering rejection.

NATO is to a very large extend a platform for the arms-lobby, they needed an enemy to have a political pretext to drive up arms spending. The Arms industry hated detente, they had to make due with peace-time spending, which was much lower than cold-war spending.

If Russia had joined Nato, we could have done further disarmament, because the larger the alliance the less individual members have to contribute. If this version of events had transpired, China would be in the process of joining too. And then arms spending would drop to 0.1 - 0.3% of state budgets. Eventually the arms industry becomes a niche legacy sector that maintains a small global military contingent, that at most sees minor skirmishes.

If you want such a peaceful world you can't have capitalists own arms industry, their profits sore whenever there is a war, they're gonna lobby and scheme to make wars happen.
>>

 No.480623

>>480615
>I've heard people say something like this, but the last time I looked for what it's referencing, I didn't find it.
Damn they scrubbed the Soviet referendum for the history books ? All Soviet citizens were asked whether they want to keep the Soviet Union or dissolve it and ~70% chose to keep it.

>If you go back far enough, Palestine was a Jewish kingdom.

This analogy doesn't work because the Zionists aren't Jewish nor do they represent Jews in any capacity. It's the pinnacle of antisemitism to conflate Zionism and Judaism, please don't do that. Jews ought not be blamed for the horrors the Zionists have unleashed. To get to the point: the Zionists can't claim to be the continuation of some Jewish kingdom from 2000 years ago. Zionism is an offshoot of Judaism that originates 70-ish years ago.
>This is not a very good argument.
I agree with you, none the less. I think the point boils down to the purpose of states being to do the bidding of the population, if a state fails at that, the population may make a new state. The Ukrainian state made laws that discriminated against the Russophile part of the population. That means the Ukrainian state failed to uphold the rights of that part of its population, hence Crimea and parts of the Donbass breaking off into new states of their own. I think the best outcome would have been East-Ukraine gaining full administrative autonomy, while remaining technically part of Ukraine. That would have avoided the civil war, the discriminatory policies and geo-political tensions.

>Crimea had that referendum after Russia invaded.

You think Russia invaded Crimea ? I know that's the neocon war-hawk narrative, but why would you believe them, they're known for making shit up to start wars, like Saddam Hussein's imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

The basic rule of thumb is that the truth leads to peace and detente, while lies leads to war and international tension. So if a narrative concludes with an enemy that has to be fought, your default assumption ought to be its false until proven true. The assertion of a Russian invasion of Crimea sounds to me like you are trying to sell me war.
>>

 No.480642

>>480623
>Damn they scrubbed the Soviet referendum for the history books ?
why should marxists care about your legalistic fetishism lol?

>This analogy doesn't work

It doesn't work because any retarded blood and soil argument doesn't work pidoraska.

>You think Russia invaded Crimea ?

No bitch, they just seized all the key strategic points with military personnel and sent their own isis fags to donbass to start an ethnic conflict.
>>

 No.480644

>>480385
>A genuine disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.
Every state has genuine disregard for other states sovereignty. That's why the very concept of "international law" is such a cringefest.

>Genuine concern over potential NATO expansion and US tomfuckery in Ukraine.

Where was all this "concern" when SU was capitulating?

>The economic and strategic incentive to invade for land/natural resources. This is basic shit.

Closer, but still far away. Why didn't they invade before? They invaded Chechnya alright.

>Concern over the ongoing war in this bordering country.

They literally started this war uygha. This is like saying US has concern over the ongoing war in Syria kek.

All of your points are far off the mark, bcs you're an idealist brainlet. Your shit just doesn't add up. Military-strategic reasons alone don't make sense bcs I don't see them invading Finland kek.

The simplest fact is that ECONOMY MOGS. Ukro economy had very close ties with Russian economy, and by extension with russian ruling class. It was too big of a pie to let it go after the pro-EU faction came to power through Maidan.

At that point war was inevitable. And so they started an ethnic conflict with their own isis knock-off. Modern Russia always tries to emulate American Empire. A little wee empire, always looking up to its grown up idol kek. Such are consequences of the crisis of ideology in the Soviet Union.
>>

 No.480649

>>480642
>start an ethnic conflict
Your propaganda is so played out and repetitive at this point that I genuinely wonder what you think you're going to accomplish. Naturally you have no blame to levy on the US and CIA, which carefully cultivated ethnonationalist Nazi elements in Ukraine going all the way back since the end of WWII in its attempt to drive a wedge between Ukraine and Russia. Nope, it all started with a Russian invasion!
>>

 No.480650

>>480642
>why should marxists care about your legalistic fetishism lol?
Maybe you don't know about this, but the Soviets were one of the driving forces that pushed for international law and institutions in the post-war period. It wasn't just the French, the British and the Americans.

>they just seized all the key strategic points with military personnel

But there is no fighting in Crimea, no struggle from the population, nothing. It'd be a first in history. There still are people in Catalonia trying to break from Spain, there still is an Irish independence movement. Centuries after the fact.

>and sent their own isis fags to donbass to start an ethnic conflict.

WTF ? The Russians aren't in bed with Isis, they're decimating Isis in Syria. The ethnic-shit boiled over when the CIA began funding the Bandera faction in Ukraine.
>>

 No.480651

>>480650
If there's any analogies to be made to ISIS, a group obsessed with purity that regularly attacked civilians, it can be found in groups like the Azov battalion, a group obsessed with purity that regularly attacked civilians.
>>

 No.480682

File: 1713668088773.mp4 ( 2.02 MB , 704x1280 , ivan the decommuniser gett….mp4 )

>>480644
>Ukro economy had very close ties with Russian economy
Still does kek. Ukrainian wageslaves complain non-stop about making shit which their boss then immediately sells to the invading state. For some reason nothing is being done about this.

>crisis of ideology

Yeah sure fag. It has nothing to do with the fact that s*vshit elites naturally grew their appetites for property until the fact that it was divided between them all became a nuisance which couldn't be ignored anymore. & it certainly didn't have any effect on deliberate petbourg-degenerating of public culture up until a noticeable amount of highschoolers geniunely stated how they want to become a hard currency prostitute or a mafioso.


<****84

<****93
<****49
<****50
<****51
Shut the fuck up lakhtafaggots. Or are you screeching here so hard in fear of your manager Prigozhin once again publicly assraping you due to maintan the collective spirit?
Oh yeah btw, did something happen to him? QUEQ
>>

 No.481066

File: 1714575569578.jpeg ( 21.08 KB , 474x474 , patetic.jpeg )

>>480682
>Still does kek.
The tendency is for less economic integration now that big russkie business got the boot. Decoupling is real.

>Yeah sure fag. It has nothing to do with the fact that s*vshit elites naturally grew their appetites for property until the fact that it was divided between them all became a nuisance which couldn't be ignored anymore.

Capital accumulation happens everywhere, but only Russkia tries to emulate political technology of the American Empire to a tee.

To not see the roots of fascination of the new russkie elites with the American Empire in the crisis of the Soviet mode of production is to be an idealist faggot.

American Empire was an ideal for them then, and it still is now. They want their own American Empire in the post-soviet region SO badly lol. It's so fucking pathetic it almost hurts.
>>

 No.481069

>>481066
I partially agree with your analysis about the Russian political economy. After 2000 Moscow tried really hard to emulate the west, even if that meant being a lowly junior member, just to get into the imperial club. They even applied for Nato membership.

It begun crumbling after Georgia crisis in 2008 (not sure about the date). There's nothing left of that now. The remaining pro-west economic interest, sometimes dubbed 'liberal oligarchs', got wiped out by the sanctions war.

The current Russian economy has more in common with Stalin's NEP than American style neo-liberal economics.

Whether Russian state capitalism can become imperial is questionable. Empires need really powerful finance capital. The Russians have thrown in with the BRICS finance transaction system. For one, they aren't biggest fish in that pool. And second BRICS has an inter-currency thing based on a basket of goods, that's supposed to prevent any member of BRICS to gain a controle over it. Copying the rise of the American empire likely wouldn't work.

Unique IPs: 14

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome