Russia will bring the special military operation to its logical conclusion, achieving its goals, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday.
  • Luci@lemmy.caEnglish
    2018·
    1 day ago

    By leaving Ukraine right? Thats the only logical conclusion I can think of.

    Edit: holy hot heck did my block list just grow today.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      182·
      1 day ago

      Reporting on what Putin has said about the state of the war is not “simping” for anyone, nor is Marxism-Leninism about “simping” for anyone.

      • postcapitalism@lemmy.todayEnglish
        68·
        1 day ago

        Cowbee. I appreciate some of your takes on Marxism, but disagree frequently with your frame of reference on state power in the global field.

        I view the war with Ukraine as one of Russo imperialism in response to Western imperialism. Indeed the USSR itself had many imperialist tendencies under a unified Asiatic / Slavic Soviet even as did Western and Asian counterparts post WW2

        The irony being I am more allied to Trotsky or Luxemburg’s take. Which no doubt wouldn’t receive fair purchase in ML group. Forgive me for not directly referencing War and International - as it meanders but hits many themes relevant to Russia/Ukraine conflict

        That being said to summarize my view: wars of conquest as a tool for furthering state capital / geopolitical interests shouldn’t be supported by Marxists, and posting the rationalization of an autocrat reads as support to me.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          113·
          1 day ago

          If Russia was actually imperialist and the Russo-Ukrainian war an inter-imperialist conflict, then I’d agree with you, but Russia isn’t imperialist (and certainly not the USSR). In the current era, the US Empire is the hegemon, and its vassals the beneficiaries of imperialism. Russia is governed by nationalists who do not have a stake in the global imperialist system, and as such are forced into south-south trade and south-south alliances. Further, there is a rising communist movement within Russia that is growing year over year that stands to return Russia to socialism.

          Ukraine is used somewhat similarly as how Israel is used by the US Empire; as millitary bases. The far-right Banderites in Kiev have power currently, and are doing their job of de-communization. The Donbass region seceded, and the ensuing war between Donetsk/Luhansk and Kiev is what is sparking Russian intervention. Russia is not doing this in pursuit of new neocolonies to exploit, nor does it have any. Russia lacks the financial capital as well as a spot in the global financial monopoly by which imperialism functions that the west has.

          A NATO victory over Russia would result in ethnic cleansing in the Donbass region, serious destabilization in a significant anti-US force, and a strong ally for socialist countries and anyone trying to break away from the IMF.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              111·
              1 day ago

              Russia doesn’t have a stake in the world imperialist system, France does and has for centuries. If France were to lose in a war against the global south, there would be a huge blow to their continued domination and subjugation of African countries. The fact that Russia has a rising communist movement is just a bonus tacked onto the end, it isn’t an indication of the country being imperialist or not. In fact, the nationalists in charge of Russia are caught between needing to appease the public yearning more and more for socialism and their own interests in perpetuating their capitalist system.

              Does that make sense?

              • postcapitalism@lemmy.todayEnglish
                27·
                16 hours ago

                Cowbee, I disagree almost entirely with what you posted. But with respect for you clearly articulating your position I will share my response.

                To your “But Russia is not imperialist” , please reflect on the following and to what extent you must stretch a rationalization:

                First and Second Chechen Wars (1994, 2000) Puppet Leader in Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko (1996) Puppet leader in Ukraine Victor Yanukovych (2010) Georgian War (2008) Annexation of Crimea (2014) Role in Syria conflict (2000 onwards) Role in African dictatorships in Burma Faso and Niger (2010s- present)

                … global south / US bad too / old Soviet vassal states must kneel ect… I get it. But the above conflicts are evidence of state capitalism exerting itself militarily for geopolitical and economic aims

                I doubt this will influence you much as you are pretty invested in your world view. But from my vantage point and reading of theory (likely some overlap if you are ML) - you are wrong *respectfully

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  10·
                  4 hours ago

                  Comrade cfgaussian already answered perfectly here. Essentially, you mix in defensive wars with allyships with other countries, and claim the defensive wars are for imperialism and the allyships “puppetry.” The Sahel States are progressive, and are allied with Russia in their national liberation from France and western imperialism.

                  I am a Marxist-Leninist, yes. Imperialism needs to be analyzed primarily by the definition of imperialism Lenin gives, not on whether or not a country interacts with others. In most of these examples, such as the Sahel States, Russia is working against imperialism.

                  Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism by which finance capital and world monopoly are dominant. Russia does not have this. Russia is currently under the control of nationalists, not finance capital, and it is the west that has that global financial monopoly.

                  Your error is in both erasing Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and viewing any kind of interaction Russia has as inherently imperialist working backwards from there. To use your rhetoric, I suggest you reflect first on what imperialism is, why we define it as such and how it operates, and consider why Marxist-Leninists therefore have the understanding of the Russian Federation that we do.

                • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
                  6·
                  13 hours ago

                  https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm#ch10

                  Imperialism is defined as the monopoly stage of finance capital.

                  Russian economy is dominated by the state and oligarchs, not by independent finance capital. It’s territorial expansion while being an regional historical imperialist action is defensive and self limiting and driven mostly by nationalism and security concerns.

                  Your list provides critical empirical evidence for a dialectical analysis but requires contextualization to avoid oversimplification. See response from comrade @cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml

                • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
                  10·
                  8 hours ago

                  First and Second Chechen Wars

                  Purely defensive, internal conflicts on internationally recognized Russian territory against CIA backed jihadist terrorists who butchered civilians and committed heinous acts of terrorism such as taking an entire school hostage and murdering hundreds of children.

                  Puppet Leader in Belarus Alexander Lukashenko

                  Lukashenko has been the leader of Belarus longer than Putin has been president. Belarus is in a Union State with Russia, and still has more autonomy from Russia than the average EU state has from Brussels.

                  Puppet leader in Ukraine Victor Yanukovych

                  He was the furthest thing from a puppet. If anything he was Western-leaning, but trying to keep Ukraine neutral. His one unforgivable crime in the eyes of the West was rejecting a terrible EU trade deal that would have ruined Ukraine’s economy (and did) in favor of an objectively much better one from Russia.

                  Georgian War

                  Literally even the EU investigation into that conflict admitted that Georgia started it. Emboldened by believing they had NATO backing, the US puppet president, installed in a color revolution, attacked the region of South Ossetia which was under the protection of Russian peacekeepers.

                  Annexation of Crimea

                  The people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted in a referendum to rejoin Russia in response to the fascist, Western-orchestrated Maidan coup.

                  The majority ethnic Russian population of Crimea did not want the same brutal neo-nazi terror militias that were terrorizing ethnic Russian regions across the rest of Ukraine to come to them, nor did they want to be forced to abide by the russophobic laws passed by the illegally installed Maidan regime, which Crimea, like the Donbass, did not recognize as legitimate.

                  Russia’s actions in Crimea were a response to a crisis provoked by Western intervention and the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government.

                  Role in Syria conflict

                  Russia co-operated with the legitimate Syrian government against a brutal Zionist/US armed and funded Al Qaeda/ISIS terrorist insurgency.

                  Role in African dictatorships in Burma Faso and Niger

                  Same thing. They are co-operating with the official government of those countries in counter-terrorist operations against Western backed jihadist terrorists.

                  None of this constitutes imperialism. In fact almost all of these are examples of Russia pushing back against Western imperialist aggression, encroachment and proxies.

    • NimaMag@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      286·
      1 day ago

      The plan never was ‘3 days’, that was an estimate that came from U.S General Mark Milley.

      • huf [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        232·
        1 day ago

        sssh, the 3 day thing has become part of the mythology of this clusterfuck for westerners, they’ll insist it’s real forever

      • freagle@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        11·
        1 day ago

        Well, Lukashenko also said it, and the editor of RT said. But yes.

        The other evidence they use is the feint that was sent directly at Kiev. They think the feint was a real genuine attempt to capture the capital city, and then from there take all the evidence that it was a feint and spin it into bad planning. So specifically, if you send a feint, and you’re committed to that entire allocation of soldiers being wiped out, you don’t send them in with supplies to last for a long slog - you send them in ultra light on a suicide mission. And that’s essentially what the deployment to Kiev was, a group with an ultralight kit heading straight for Kiev to draw out forces and create confusion in the early days of the war. That feint was destroyed and then when they realized it was feint they spun it hard into “look at these fools who thought they could end this thing in three days” basically as a way of avoiding the obvious conclusion that they wasted time dealing with a trick.

        It would be like if someone sent a feint filled with woodland creatures and animated scarecrows and after you waste strategically valuable time dealing with them you spend the rest of the war saying “this opponent is so dumb they thought they could win with scarecrows” when the reality is that you got tricked and the feint did exactly what it was intended to do.