[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

File: 1716814301158-0.png (392.15 KB, 540x549, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1716814301158-1.png (966.89 KB, 655x851, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1716814301158-2.png (5.91 MB, 1931x2541, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1716814301158-3.png (810.79 KB, 1000x965, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1716814301158-4.mp4 (4.05 MB, 960x360, ukraine2025.mp4)

 [Last 50 Posts]

Remember!!: Updoot to the right!


Evidence of the influence and origin of neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine



Live maps and updates
DeepStateMap: https://deepstatemap.live
Events in Ukraine: https://eventsinukraine.substack.com/
SouthFront: https://southfront.org/category/all-articles/world/europe/ukraine/

Watch Together
📺 News/events: https://tv.leftypol.org/r/HappeningsviaKlash
📺 Hangout/chill: https://tv.leftypol.org/r/bloodcast

Watch By Yourself
>Video Essays / Historical Background
📺 Ukraine: The Avoidable War - Boy Boy

📺 America, Russia, and Ukraine's Far Right - Gravel Institute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pyVJG7_6Q (Link TBA)

📺 Crimea vs Taiwan: Who Gets Self-Determination? - BadEmpanada

📺 The Nature of Putin's Russia and Its Causes (3-Part Series) - 1Dime

<Current Happenings

📺 The Grayzone: https://www.youtube.com/@thegrayzone7996
📺 DDGeopolitics: https://www.youtube.com/@DDGeopolitics
📺 Defense Politics Asia: https://www.youtube.com/@DefensePoliticsAsia
📺 The Duran: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdeMVChrumySxV9N1w0Au-w
📺 The News Atlas: https://www.youtube.com/c/thenewatlas
📺 Military Summary: https://www.youtube.com/@militarysummary


Social media



Thread guidelines:
• Please remember to add a spoiler to NSFW and extreme content such as graphic violence and gore.
• Try your best to not derail discussion too much from the main events and relevant places where the war is taken place, as well as other happenings, groups and public figures related to it.
• Meta discussion of the historical, philosophical and ideological background of the war is fine as long as its done in good faith and comradely.
• In the event the meta discussion overstays its welcome, participating users will be referred to take the conversation to the MULTIPOLARISM general thread: >>>/leftypol/1590991
• Quality shitposting and original content is encouraged! Spamming glowie memes is low effort.
• Remember to take your meds! It helps mediate schizoposting and foot fetishism
• this is /isg/ for people who treat geopolitics like shitty map games


also we can probably add that once liberalism overcame great power conflict and put its contradictions on display, we can also say that the contradictions of AES also were on display given the failure of imperialism to implode as predicted and instead forming a stable international order after WW2


I wanna see shit like this but with Lenin or Stalin in Russia.


>Fuck Indonesia, they're the only country outside of western proxies that has communism banned
Indonesia used to have the 2nd largest Communist party on the planet. The Burger Reich made sure to put an end to that by doing one of their most bloodthirsty coups, enabling the murder of millions by Suharto.


Indonesia will turn into one of the biggest economy superpowers in a few years.


>We might feel deep hatred for (former) fellow citizens of Ukraine, but I swear we had no intention of ethnically cleansing them ever


That's like at least a decade old



Hopefully these two are already burried


File: 1717779558861.jpg (88.33 KB, 768x750, 1703774477007.jpg)

This war has exposed the Russian military as pathetic and weak. The US military was able to destroy the Iraqi military and take over in a matter of weeks, and that was on the other side of the planet. It's been over two years and nothing major has changed, and this is a country Russia borders. If they actually had a competent, powerful military this war would've been over two years ago.


it's this retard again


I haven't posted in this thread in months


That's the dumbest thing i've ever read.
All this war has done is allow the russian military to asses and fix it's weakness, test it's equipment, strengthen it's produciton and gain valuable experience as well as militarize it's society.
You're delusional if you think the russian military is coming out of this for the worse.


Two more yemen bombings, sis


I think it's a mix of both. One should never forget that war is mutually destructive and involves more failure than success, and it's not a video game, so when you die, you don't respawn. But failure is the motive force for making changes that can be the basis for future success. Everyone takes their respective lessons. The Russian army failed a lot in 2022 but it is adapting, so the Russian army today is not the same Russian army that invaded Ukraine. The Ukrainian army that clashed with the Russian army failed in 2014-2015 but performed a lot better in 2022. The U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a disaster. The U.S. still rolled over Grenada which couldn't mount much of a resistance, but there might have been more American casualties from helicopter crashes and friendly fire than Grenadian fire just because of how badly the U.S. military was organized. But the U.S. learned lessons and applied them in the Persian Gulf War.


File: 1717790905521.png (576.35 KB, 1024x624, ClipboardImage.png)

countries that have said Yes or No to zelensky's peace summit


Maduro and Khameni still thinking it over?


which color is which?


File: 1717795020043.jpg (88.26 KB, 761x1024, 1717791808339759m.jpg)


unlimited debt is surprisingly good at halting russian advance


Many countries that are showed as going have actually downgraded their delegation to third-tier diplomats: Kamala instead of Biden, etc.

It's a fucking sham.


For how long?



An older article, but still relevant imo

>“Russian is a spiritual and political concept. We are great integrators. We jointly build the common, without destroying the particular. We are being led to hell. So if we want to defeat the West, we have to defeat it in our heads. Victories on the battlefield will follow victories in the field of thinking, ideology. But ideology is not a product of the mind of political scientists. It follows from the whole of Russian history. In the West, by the way, the main threat is considered to be the Russian conservative offensive. And here our opponents are right. Therefore, Russia needs a mental security strategy.”


>lnitsky has prefaced his public statements with the disclaimer that they are his personal views only.

>Notwithstanding, he is making an explicit official repudiation of claims by Ukrainian, Israeli and US officials, as well as of reporters repeating what they have been told by the CIA, that an end to the war can be negotiated with Moscow on the terms of the purported Istanbul agreement of April 2022. In what Ilnitsky thinks aloud and is saying in public, there is the clearest hint from the General Staff and the Stavka that the war cannot end without NATO’s capitulation, not just the defeat of the regime in Kiev and Lvov.

>This is also the official position of the Russian Foreign Ministry in the non-aggression treaties it presented the US and NATO on December 17, 2022.


>unlimited cannon fodder


Just watched a Bradley get TKO’d by a fucking BTR lmao



Ukrainian government bans World Socialist Web Site

>On Monday, June 3, the Ukrainian government banned the World Socialist Web Site across the country, issuing an order commanding all internet service providers to block access to the WSWS indefinitely.

This is because the WSWS has launched a very high-profile campaign to try to free the Ukrainian political prisoner Bogdan Syrotiuk. Zelenskyy is afraid of the truth about the repressive police state Ukrainians are living under becoming public knowledge.


>blue tape


Of course you did, Bradley has no real armor, since it's using aluminium. 30mm, but still.


Pretty sure even the US admitted that the Russian military grew stronger about 15-20% since the start of the SMO.


It has ERA (or was it NERA?), giving it good armor


Later versions at least


ERA gives chemical energy protection, not so much from solid shot. The 30mm autocannon will still ventilate it.



I think the BMP-3 also uses aluminium armor, I was kinda shocked when I learned about that


wsws fighting the good fight? zelensky banned all the left parties didn't he


It's telling that out of BMP-1, 2 and 3, 2 is the one most in use.


Haven't they been going through old stock first on all types of equipment this whole war?


Only according to Ukrainian numbers.


>This is because the WSWS has launched a very high-profile campaign to try to free the Ukrainian political prisoner Bogdan Syrotiuk. Zelenskyy is afraid of the truth about the repressive police state Ukrainians are living under becoming public knowledge.
So what are you doing to aid the campaign, anons?


File: 1717807204083.jpg (25.52 KB, 776x772, FOOAxBSXsAswffY.jpg)


File: 1717807956511.jpg (103.53 KB, 736x736, Comics.jpg)


>Ukraine spends eight years carrying out a campaign of terror and genocide against its own citizens
>but when Russia invades to stop it they're the ones called nazis
fuck this gay earth


literally me


>Humanitarian interventionism / Responsibility to protect
what year is it, 1995?


Pssh, I wish.


>Never 2022
>1939 Again
Ukrainian Nazis


Westoids just don’t understand Russia’s legal, provoked, partial-scale war in Ukraine.



It's called a war, Zigger




This but unironically.


File: 1717814691802.png (54.09 KB, 512x512, 1630972185121.png)

>want normies to think Russia bad
>normies think Nazis bad


there has been no declaration of war


The capitalists don't "declare" class war either but you might still be in one.


>Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.

>When we think about this conjuring up of the dead of world history, a salient difference reveals itself. Camille Desmoulins, Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Napoleon, the heroes as well as the parties and the masses of the old French Revolution, performed the task of their time – that of unchaining and establishing modern bourgeois society – in Roman costumes and with Roman phrases. The first one destroyed the feudal foundation and cut off the feudal heads that had grown on it. The other created inside France the only conditions under which free competition could be developed, parceled-out land properly used, and the unfettered productive power of the nation employed; and beyond the French borders it swept away feudal institutions everywhere, to provide, as far as necessary, bourgeois society in France with an appropriate up-to-date environment on the European continent. Once the new social formation was established, the antediluvian colossi disappeared and with them also the resurrected Romanism – the Brutuses, the Gracchi, the publicolas, the tribunes, the senators, and Caesar himself. Bourgeois society in its sober reality bred its own true interpreters and spokesmen in the Says, Cousins, Royer-Collards, Benjamin Constants, and Guizots; its real military leaders sat behind the office desk and the hog-headed Louis XVIII was its political chief. Entirely absorbed in the production of wealth and in peaceful competitive struggle, it no longer remembered that the ghosts of the Roman period had watched over its cradle.

>But unheroic though bourgeois society is, it nevertheless needed heroism, sacrifice, terror, civil war, and national wars to bring it into being. And in the austere classical traditions of the Roman Republic the bourgeois gladiators found the ideals and the art forms, the self-deceptions, that they needed to conceal from themselves the bourgeois-limited content of their struggles and to keep their passion on the high plane of great historic tragedy. Similarly, at another stage of development a century earlier, Cromwell and the English people had borrowed from the Old Testament the speech, emotions, and illusions for their bourgeois revolution. When the real goal had been achieved and the bourgeois transformation of English society had been accomplished, Locke supplanted Habakkuk.

– Karl Marx


I wasn’t being ironic




imagine being scared of a bunch of furries lmao


theres nothing wrong with aluminium armor


at least two(2) more weeks


They're not even a little bit subtle.
>The flag consists of two colors: red and black. The black color symbolizes the black earth ("Chornozem") that Ukraine is synonymous for, and the red color represents blood spilled for Ukraine.
It's so on the surface that you can just say that anyone who cares about the truth even the tiniest bit found this out. If someone says that current Ukraine isn't fascist, you just know that the retard wants to make excuses for bending the knee to western bourgeois.


The intellectually honest ones just say "why yes, I support Nazis in their genocidal campaign because it's the inherently barbaric mutt horde orc Russians". It is ultimately what the western governments are doing.


If that's our standard, are we to reformulate American actions on the same basis?
>The Korean Special Military Operation
>The Vietnam Special Military Operation
>The first Gulf Special Military Operation
>The Special Military Operation on Terror
>The Iraq Special Military Operation


I really didn't see "Erm, ackshually being a Nazi can be justified in some cases" as being a line the liberals would actually take, I was shocked for a bit until I remembered that the western media has downplayed and skewed the USSR's role in WW2 from being one of the major targets of the Nazi ideology that valiantly fought them all the way back to Berlin, to just being a sect of the German Nazi Party that had a schism at some point in 1941 that resulted in an inter-ideological bitch fight but is basically the same thing.


Except for the fact that it's a weight saving measure. And you better be using it as part of a composite, because traversing through different densities (including air) causes tumbling (except in depleted uranium). And it basic physics, when two metals collide, the more dense one has right of way.



>The intellectually honest ones just say "why yes, I support Nazis in their genocidal campaign because it's the inherently barbaric mutt horde orc Russians".
Those people exist but there are also pro-Russia people who always go on about the Jewish rat Zelensky who's going to spread globohomo fag marriage to Christian Russia. In Western countries among fringe pro-Russia antisemites and far-right conspiracy theory channels there's a lot of Jewbaiting, that the people we call Ukrainian Nazis are actually the "Khazarian Mafia" and so on. Like David Dees (rip) who made this amazing cartoon (and a relatively tame one if you look up his other works).

I don't really think the war makes sense in terms of anybody "fighting fascism," or if they are, then it's one big fascist civil war. What I think is going on is the security services in both Russia and Western countries + Ukraine are trying to weaponize the far right for their own purposes. If the West can get Nazis to fight Russia because they're barbaric mutt horde orcs, then all the better. And Russia is more than happy to try to weaponize the far right for their own purposes. Nothing is really beneath any of these governments. The ideology around this war is also weird because both sides claim they're fighting fascists. The dueling WWII anniversaries being a deliberate attempt to wrap the current crusade in the uniforms of the victors of that war.


The difference is that for a long time it was extremely hard for western media to find images of Ukrainian soldiers that didn't have some kind of Nazi iconography plastered over them, that the western media tried to brow beat anyone who raised concerns about calling people fighting with Wolfangles on their shoulders heroes, and finding an example of a Ukrainian national hero who didn't have ties to the Nazis was likewise pretty hard.

Russia does have a lot of cringe social policies that no doubt in our era of culture wars in the west attracts supporters on the basis that they're pretty cringe people themselves, but you can't equate some western cringelords inferring that Russia supports their personal opinions, over what has unfortunately been made by the west geopolitical issues, with Ukrainians openly embracing and hyping up their not even very strong ties to the Nazis.

At no point does being "pro-Russian" demand you to re-evaluate how you feel about Nazis, if you think The Nazis were bad actually, well that's also the only acceptable position to the Russian camp because they actually suffered their genocidal ambitions previously, supporting Ukraine quite directly asks you to consider whether being a Nazi is acceptable under some circumstance with the strong suggestion that it is.


I think it's a yes and no answer to the question you're touching on. There is a Post-Soviet Russia that is decidedly conservative and hosts international conferences with Western Euroskeptic nationalist parties such as FN (I'm still hesitant to describe these as truly far right - it reflects on right wing rejection not of liberal democracy but the international system of such which is a latter day development not necessarily from the traditions of Hitler or de Maistre). Combined with traditional left wing opposition to neoliberal globalization, you can see the basis for the Atlantic Council panicking about a 'left-right alliance' orchestrated by Russia as it did in 2017 or Hillary Clinton suggesting Putin heads an international network of xenophobes that same year. This was all evidence to them that international capitalism was successfully polarizing by liberalism and illiberalism, and that is how they read the cause of the post-2014/16 crisis. They therefore doubled down on the rapid post-9/11 expansion.

However, as even my liberal peers in eastern European academic will tell you, Russia is incompatible with the nation-state model and is a 'colonial empire' because it spans multiple nationalities. Historically, it's not the basis for racial or ethnic nationalism to overcome liberal-capitalism or socialism but instead cannibalized by such things.

But on the other hand, Ukraine represents liberalism becoming increasingly contradictory as it expands until it reveals a return to the European nationalism and imperialism that is its foundation. This ironically means Ukraine being both an extension of Western states and representing their past. Accordingly, Ukraine has been an international beacon for the legitimate far-right - racial or ethnonationalist paramilitary groups. The way decommunization polarized by Europeanness served the same confirmation bias, but in this case on the Russian side.

The 'neoliberal nazi' and 'conservative anti-fascist' alignments at work here are bitterly contradictory and I suspect they represent first incoherent ways globalization divided us and second nascent alignments bubbling to the surface. The battle between pro and anti globalization is ultimately to be displaced by globalization vs alterglobalization. Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel as flashpoints will be the catalyst, I believe. Ukraine is revealing Russian strategic allies are in the colonial and semi-colonial countries, not European nationalists. Israel is combining liberals and the right in the West along civilizational lines ("Muslim savages hate Jews unlike us democracies so Israel can't live near them"). Taiwan will reinforce left wing support for bourgeois democracy ("DPP likes gays whereas Xi represents a combination of the left wing of the party with trad Confucian influences"). In other words, we will progress from a clash between nationalism and globalization in general to a clash between nations with varying degrees of independence and dependence under global capitalism which reflects on its global construction - ranging from colonial to semi-colonial to European great power vassal to newly independence small nation European vassal to Anglo-American empire in dependence to independence.

I think the hope is that by progressing from national and international capitalism to core and periphery we will ultimately progress to international capital and international labor. Each step makes it easier to assert a purer and purer left wing position.

Ultimately I believe the source of these incoherent alignments is how liberal democracy was able to progress due to imperialism and continue moving to the left since the 60s or so. You have a lot of domestic progress built on foreign regression, Jeffrey Sachs likes to note the British empire as an original example of this whenever he's hit with sympathizing with authoritarian states over liberal ones. "Yea you're democratic - at home. Globally you're built on a dictatorship you intensify." In the absence of anti-imperialism/anti-colonialism after the Cold War, a simple conservative rejection of liberalism and assertion of cultural differences with the West filled the void of rejecting this dictatorship. Neolibs and neocons in the West really sensed an opportunity for regeneration because of this. The problems of capitalism could be deflected from with a great post-Cold War battle over the resumed spread of liberalism in that period.


an idea i find interesting to entertain, if risky to post because it's open to a lazy interpretation: what if the use of Nazi symbolism by Ukranians flows not from "nazi ideology" as such, but from the desire to distance themselves further from Russia, to pick a symbol that alienates Russians? that is: if the great patriotic war is such a major part of Russian national identity, and you're opposed to Russia, picking the symbolism of the other side of Russia's most important war seems quite natural.

not that i'm advancing this as a defense (even the most absurd pedant wouldn't care to argue "this far-right, fascist militia with nazi symbolism isn't nazi as such…"), but i think there's something to it sociologically speaking - a parallel phenomenon to 4chan /pol/ being full of the kind of people the Nazis would've genocided. politically useless, but sociologically useful at alienating the people you want to alienate without bothering those you're at ease with…


it's a 'half-nazism' only rehabilitating the eastern front per bloodlands ideology and western apologia for eastern euro nazi collaborators. the banderists have no plans to overthrow liberal democracy in the west, they just want europeanness to spread east


I see where you're coming from, but I would counter that if this was the case, they'd surely just march under the banner of the hakenkreuz as the most provocative symbol of Nazism and therefore the most anti-Russian symbol imaginable.
But instead they do what most Neo-Nazis do, which is to adopt the iconography that was less visible to outsiders of the Reich in order to not alienate themselves from the general population immediately but the people who know, know what you're about.

Because a wolfsangle or a sonnenrad are not a hakenkreuz, the western media is able to propagandise people in the same way Neo-Nazis intend, to suggest that these symbols are only loosely related to Nazism and they were probably stolen by the Nazis in the same way they did with the swastika anyway, because the understanding of Neo-Nazis (and the western press apparently) is that people want to support Nazism (or Ukraine) but can't face the stigma of wearing the red armband, essentially it aims to alienate no one.

So if this was just about simple provocation via iconography, there'd be no reason to do it in half measures, Ukraine as with all Neo-Nazis want symbols that tell the truth to some people and lies to other people.


Korea was famously declared a "police action" down to Western Korean war veterans being refused membership in veterans associations for not having been deployed to a "war".


by the way I found an article articulating some of these views


non-paywalled version: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-world-isn-t-deglobalizing-it-s-reglobalizing/ar-BB1nBAOX

>The changes in the mechanisms of globalization have been concentrated mainly in the economic and financial dimension. What might be called the golden age of globalization, from 1990 to 2015, was shaped by two driving forces, one realist and the other idealist. The realist force was neoliberal capitalism; the idealist force was leftist cosmopolitanism. During this quarter-century of what was in essence the period of "happy and hopeful" globalization, these two typologically opposed ideologies worked together in an unholy alliance. In practice, their joint impact was to foster a mindset of "globalism" in order to expand globalization mechanisms to every corner of the world.

>As mentioned, neoliberal capitalism pursued this for realist purposes: to expand production and market opportunities, enlarge the range of the effective employment of capital, homogenize international consumption and increase profits. Leftist cosmopolitanism, although in principle opposed to the limitless expansion of capitalism, embraced the same process for idealist purposes: to unify humanity and expand basic rights to every citizen, including the right of mobility. Both ideologies worked symbiotically, each exploiting the other for its own purposes. Thus when the mechanisms of globalization were gradually implemented and continuously expanded, both ideologies were paradoxically triumphant and exploited at the same time.

>The joint effect was the softening of borders, at least in the popular imagination; the intensification of the flows and exchanges of goods, services and people; and increasingly limitless interconnection. This came with increasing interdependence and decreasing autochthony, even in basic and crucial sectors, together with decreasing localization and a growing "one size fits all" mentality by those who steered and profited from these mechanisms of globalization. This created a more uniform world in which inequality between societies decreased, even as inequality within those societies increased, and in which local needs in theory were meant to benefit from global cybernetic logics of interconnection and profit, but in practice were subordinated to them.

The reciprocal:

>Yet since the mid-2010s, both these driving forces have been increasingly challenged. Neoliberal capitalism has been challenged by the "turn toward green" in reaction to the climate crisis. Environmental transformation and new social technologies have increased awareness "from below" by localizing and contextualizing globalized relations of production and consumption, undermining overly simplistic "one globalization for all" mindsets and agendas. On the other hand, leftist cosmopolitanism has been challenged by renationalization in response to both geopolitical competition and demands by local and national populations for better protection of their specific lifestyles, cultures, religions and habits from overdiversification and cultural "homogenization."

>The second transformation, that of the global order, has been concentrated mainly in the political dimension. The existing liberal international order, including international law, emerged from World War II and has been constantly evolving since then. This process has given life to the various interconnecting multilateral institutions and platforms that help structure the global order, such as the United Nations and its suborganizations, as well as bodies such as the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. All these bodies and platforms favored increasingly open trade and interconnected systems of finance and security, protected by the economic and military hegemony of the liberal-democratic West and its values. The guiding idea was the combination of an all-encompassing, transnational rule of law and economic liberalism, built on the foundation of worldwide capitalist logics and backed by Western hard and soft power dominance.

>This liberal international order was never officially "declared." Rather, it was taken as a "natural" fact, at least by the most influential economic and political powers. Moreover, until the end of the Cold War in 1989-1991, the liberal international order was to some extent, and counterintuitively, strengthened by the East-West dichotomy, which created binary narratives and a simplified dialectic that tended to compare the benefits of "Western values" to the illiberal authoritarianism of the Eastern bloc. The collapse of the Soviet Union and its communist satellite states in Europe changed the global order from a bipolar system characterized by private capitalism versus state capitalism to a unipolar system dominated by the U.S. and characterized by universalized capitalism, what Francis Fukuyama and other neoliberals conceived of as the "end of history."

The rise of emergent powers that fit neither the 'unholy alliance' or its reciprocal

>From 1991 to 2015, despite the symbolic and ideological rupture of 9/11, the burden of shoring up the still unipolar global order was shouldered more or less singlehandedly by the "lonely superpower"-the United States. Since the European migrant and refugee crisis in 2015, followed by the Brexit referendum and Trump's election in 2016-all of which were symptoms, rather than causes of historical change-the liberal international order has undergone a visible process of transformation. As a result, the dominance of Western liberal democracies has been gradually challenged by a new bloc of emerging and often autocratic powers that increasingly work together both to further their economic interests, but also to challenge the norms and structures of the global order

>In fact, though widely obscured by Western illusions of stability, for two decades-dating back to the accession of China to the WTO in 2001 and accelerating with that of Russia to the same body in 2012-these autocratic emerging powers had been increasing in number and influence. While they participated in the Western-led global order to access the benefits of economic and financial development it offers, these powers never accepted the set of values associated with that order. To the contrary, they have started to build parallel institutions that for now allow them to offer partner states around the world alternatives within the global order, but which could one day crystallize into an alternative order altogether.

>In addition, populist and antidemocratic tendencies gathered momentum within the world's democracies, mainly due to the visible proliferation of the negative effects of globalization, such as growing inequality, unregulated migration and mass tourism, and the lack of appropriate "glocal" adaptations of the top-down, one-size-fits-all models of globalization and capitalist interdependence. Meanwhile, the emergence of social media facilitated the dissemination in democracies of illiberal discourses and ambiguous information-often referred to as misinformation and disinformation-thereby weakening the time-tested self-stabilization patterns of open societies.

Why liberals identified not a growing dictatorship they expanded but vulnerability to one as the problem:

>In response to these new forms of broadcasting, authoritarian regimes strictly regulated their societies' information and media landscapes according to their own views. By contrast, the rules of liberal-democratic systems protect freedom of expression and the plurality of opinion, allowing illiberal discourses and propaganda directed against the values of open societies to flourish and do serious damage to the coherence of democracies from within.

>Most importantly, the heightened geopolitical competition that has characterized the global order since Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 has increased exponentially since its all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022. One result has been a more cautious and differentiated view of the global order by states in traditionally fluid geopolitical regions such as Africa and Latin America, where for a decade now a trend toward "active nonalignment" policies has prevailed. The spread of nonalignment in the Global South indirectly points toward a newly divided world among competing ideological blocs in which alignment has once again become relevant. The emerging narrative for these competing ideological blocs, and one that has been embraced by U.S. President Joe Biden, portrays a battle between democracies and autocracies.

>Whether or not this narrative captures the complexities of the current transformations, it has resulted in two different typological visions of a right and just global order, as well as a systemic pattern of bifurcation in which "two globalizations for two blocs" has begun to replace "one globalization for all." The debate as to whether this will result in a world of two blocs or three-the West, the East and the South-that, as G. John Ikenberry put it, "compete to shape global order" remains an open one. Only the further unfolding of reglobalization can indicate in which direction this trend is ultimately moving.

>Finally, the third change, in relations between globalization and the global order, has been concentrated mainly in the dimension of social and political habits, or what can be considered a world-encompassing political culture. The undergirding element that secured Western dominance in the post-WWII global order was U.S. military power, particularly the U.S. Navy's role in protecting global trade routes. This, among other factors, ensured that the U.S. dollar became the world reserve currency. The result was a self-reinforcing loop in which the dollar supported U.S. supremacy, and U.S. supremacy supported the dollar. In other words, globalization in the form of mechanisms of economic interdependency was related to protecting the global order in the form of military securitization for political stabilization. This created a kind of global political culture, or an inbuilt "habit of the normal and the usual," which was tied to the interrelation between economic, financial and political securitizations.

>This culture is now profoundly challenged by the above-mentioned processes of reglobalization, and exacerbated by the United States' turn inward after decades of serving as the "global policeman." Whether China wants to compete with the U.S. in securing global trade routes and maritime interconnections remains a subject of debate. But it has already begun to take the steps necessary to do so, including a military modernization that has seen a massive expansion of its blue-water navy. Closer to home, China's territorial claims in the South China Sea and over Taiwan aim to establish sovereignty over some of the most important global maritime trade routes. Elsewhere, U.S. retrenchment may leave behind security vacuums that further erode the relation between mechanisms of globalization and the global order.


>Globalization has been changing profoundly for around a decade. While some have called this process deglobalization, there is a much stronger argument for calling it a process of reglobalization, in which the "happy globalization" of the 1990-2015 period is remaking itself, yet with a still unclear outcome.

In summary, globalization 1.0 ended, the anti-globalization backlash to it goes nowhere, and there will be a battle between 1.0 and multipolar alterglobalization or between the way US dominance guarantees one open world system and the way the multiplicity of different non-Western nations and civilizations accelerates globalization.


>At no point does being "pro-Russian" demand you to re-evaluate how you feel about Nazis, if you think The Nazis were bad actually, well that's also the only acceptable position to the Russian camp because they actually suffered their genocidal ambitions previously
But can you be a racist and overall far-right shitbag and be in the Russian camp? The answer seems to be yes. Just don't call yourself a Nazi or use swastikas (although a Slavic variation is okay). I read parts of a memoir by one DPR/LPR fighter in the 2014/2015 war and it was interesting (really as a military memoir) in that he described himself as a "hardcore racist" and libertarian but he didn't like "Nazis" but that seemed mainly because Nazism = anti-Russian. But is the substance of the beliefs really that different? We're fighting over symbols here (which is very postmodern) but that seems like a shallow way to look at it.

This isn't to deny that there's all kinds of far-right shitbags in Ukraine either. I was watching some video by an American who travels around to different countries, and he wound up in Lviv and he was like "wow, this place is great, they really love Americans and hate communism!" and one of the first Ukrainians he met was some skinhead with 1488 tattoos on his knuckles and a t-shirt that said (in English) something like "I'm just here for the violence." I thought, oh Jesus.

>There is a Post-Soviet Russia that is decidedly conservative and hosts international conferences with Western Euroskeptic nationalist parties such as FN
I think there are geopolitical reasons for that. For Russia, it's better to encourage division in Europe – to prevent a more politically homogenous and unified Europe.

>Russia is incompatible with the nation-state model

But I'm not sure. We might be seeing its development. Or similar phenomenon happening in both Ukraine and Russia. Is Russia being multi-ethnic really incompatible with it transforming into a nation-state? That doesn't seem to apply to American nationalism or French nationalism . One of the justifications for the war is that there are millions of Russians living outside of Russia and that, therefore, Russia has a legitimate interest in those communities. What's a Russian? That seems to be defined as a language. I do think looking at what's going on as parallel developments is an interesting one, with a trend in the West also toward emphasizing difference.


>But I'm not sure. We might be seeing its development. Or similar phenomenon happening in both Ukraine and Russia. Is Russia being multi-ethnic really incompatible with it transforming into a nation-state? That doesn't seem to apply to American nationalism or French nationalism . One of the justifications for the war is that there are millions of Russians living outside of Russia and that, therefore, Russia has a legitimate interest in those communities. What's a Russian? That seems to be defined as a language. I do think looking at what's going on as parallel developments is an interesting one, with a trend in the West also toward emphasizing difference.

I mean, unlike France or America, Russia is federalized by nationality. The fact this is about Russians outside of Russia clashing with the European nation-state model is further evidence, not a counter example, of its incompatibility. Russia is a multinational state unlike the West. From Stalin:

>Matters proceeded somewhat differently in Eastern Europe. Whereas in the West nations developed into states, in the East multi-national states were formed, states consisting of several nationalities. Such are Austria-Hungary and Russia. In Austria, the Germans proved to be politically the most developed, and they took it upon themselves to unite the Austrian nationalities into a state. In Hungary, the most adapted for state organization were the Magyars – the core of the Hungarian nationalities – and it was they who united Hungary. In Russia, the uniting of the nationalities was undertaken by the Great Russians, who were headed by a historically formed, powerful and well-organized aristocratic military bureaucracy.


>But can you be a racist and overall far-right shitbag and be in the Russian camp?
You can be a racist and place yourself in any camp, that's kind of the problem with racists in that they make up their own rules that they feel are enforceable to the point of mass murder to uphold.

Succinctly, other people call Russia Nazis as an insult, Ukrainians call themselves Nazis with pride.


File: 1717832668445.jpg (106.33 KB, 1024x737, ponder.jpg)

>In summary, globalization 1.0 ended, the anti-globalization backlash to it goes nowhere, and there will be a battle between 1.0 and multipolar alterglobalization or between the way US dominance guarantees one open world system and the way the multiplicity of different non-Western nations and civilizations accelerates globalization.


File: 1717832686882.png (269.75 KB, 1515x1007, ClipboardImage.png)

please stop greentexting gay nazi, you are stealthing his retarded libshit past my filter



File: 1717835166709.png (27.53 KB, 756x583, 1665601865451.png)

holy shit what a retard. i am genuinely confused


File: 1717835494653.mp4 (472.22 KB, 320x580, gardentruth.mp4)

>And now, the esteemed guest lecturer Dr. /ukraine/ /leftypol/ gives the keynote address


>Those people exist but there are also pro-Russia people who always go on about the Jewish rat Zelensky who's going to spread globohomo fag marriage to Christian Russia.

Haven't seen people like this is in real life


Some posters here spend too much time on Telegram channels.


But on the other hand the
>So what if they have Nazis!? Russia has Nazis as well! America has Nazis! It's a non-issue and an irrelevance that Russian propaganda is over-exaggerating!
seems to be the standard liberal take both online and offline to Ukraine uniquely considering Nazi collaborators to be national heroes and erecting statues of them and naming streets after them and even having pro-fascist slogans supporting them written on their football uniforms.


That's because they are idealists. Honestly, I'll even say the Ukrainians building statues of Bandera doesn't make them nazis, just like the Russians rebuilding statues of Lenin in liberated towns doesn't make them communists. Indeed, it's hard to call Ukrainian fascism nazism, when the Nazis would have liquidated the Ukrainian race. However, any Marxist can easily come to the conclusion that the Ukraine is a fascist state, and one of the elements of Ukrainian fascism is the idolization of Nazis


I will also add that this is purely for discussion among Marxists. When discussing with normies, we should call Ukrainians Nazis because it is simple, provocative, effective and essentially true anyway


>just like the Russians rebuilding statues of Lenin in liberated towns doesn't make them communists.
Does this actually happen?

I'd say a better example is the US having statues of prominent slave traders, but also statues of generals who BTFO slavers when they resisted abolition, so that's a mixed enough bag that I guess one could reasonably claim that the statue of the slaver is honouring something else they did in life other than trading human beings, but I don't see that there was much in Ukraine to imply that they supported Bandera only for seeking independence and downplaying or even criticising his ties to the Nazis, and they wouldn't because joining the Nazis is to join the ideal of a trans-european aryan superpower, leading the SS into your nation to rid yourself of the reds but then being like "umm actually I think I'd prefer liberal democracy over fascism now thanks" wasn't really part of the deal.

I think I've seen a handful of billboards in Eastern Ukraine that implies that fighting Nazis is good and the Russians are the Nazis, but I assume that's for Russian speaking territories only, in Lvivistan I doubt such allusions are made.


putin's running out of time.


angling for a New York Times headline writing position?


Lvovistan is an abomination




>I'll even say the Ukrainians building statues of Bandera doesn't make them nazis, just like the Russians rebuilding statues of Lenin in liberated towns doesn't make them communists.
I'd say both of those things are appealing to supporters of Bandera/Lenin. The difference with the Russians is they'll appeal to both Soviet nostalgia and Tzardom nostalgia, while the Ukrops appeal solely to Bandera adoration. If they were building statues of Eisenhower it wouldn't be so obviously fascistic.


>it's hard to call Ukrainian fascism nazism


Europeans are treating WW2 the same way they treat WW1 - a tragic mistaken war between brothers, when they should have stood united against the barbaric "other" hordes. NATO is unifying ideology, and such unified ideology requires historical revisionism


As an aside, really disappointing video about the how the Ukraine War is going to end by the Deprogram guys, it just chastises NATO for not providing more gibs more quickly without really getting into the nitty gritty of why near-open war between Russia and NATO is the only option for Ukraine to win in the first place "for brevity".
A mention of unwritten agreements about not expanding NATO being legally broken and that explains but doesn't justify this violent resistance to such expansion, with little discussion of what NATO expansion actually means other than just Russia being pissed off that Washington went back on a pinky promise.


I wouldn't go that far, but it's clear the double genocide theory makes up enough of the collective unconsciousness now that considering which of Nazi Germany or the USSR is the lesser evil is an acceptable choice to make that Europeans can, with an oh so heavy heart, confess that maybe if they were Estonian or Ukrainian in 1940, oh blow it perhaps they might hold their nose and arrest Jews as well for their own freedom from Communism.


The deprogram supports NATO?


I want more talk about the propaganda side of the war, how Westoids started saying "conscripts having no rear training and getting trained on the frontlines is actually a good thing!" and also about describing their fleets and planes and armies tactics as nothing more than meatwaves, which also became a good thing because it's the good guys that do it now, lol

Nah, I'd go that far.They even have that butthurt emblem of "no more wars" as opposed to Soviets/Russia's/rest of the world's defeat of Nazis


It was on their First Thought channel and I dunno, the video seems to be really reluctant to analyse the end of the Ukraine War outside of
>Ukraine needed gibs
>NATO didn't give enough gibs
>What gibs they got didn't come fast enough
>Naughty NATO for not giving the gibs Ukraine needed to win
>That's why Ukraine will lose
But with not nearly enough discussion that would imply that a Ukrainian victory (and therefore a victory for NATO expansion) isn't a desirable thing.


Yeah or how normally, yes it is tragic when boys of 18 get conscripted and sent off to war and should never be done if at all avoidable, but ackshually now that everything has gone tits up with the wunderwaffen we need to send those entitled club going little bastards to the front to avoid negotiated peace with Russia PRONTO


well yeah cuz thats not what the channel is. first thought is just news analysis, if he made the same video on second thought it would probably be more about what outcome is best and why


thats because it doesnt end at bandera statues, they also do all the other shit nazis do. they have nazi militias they do hate crimes with, right sector controls the local drug trade and has time to pressure the government every time it steps out of line. massacres were committed, laws restricting the russian language were passed etc. are you dumb or something?


Or how rules-based international order is cool and rules, but then making a fool of and lying to Russia is also super cool because Westoids are the good guys outsmarting an evil asiatic horde

I can't think up anything remotely similar from the Russian side of propaganda frontline. Like, Russian tone is more of "we believed them and they have fooled us", which is a profoundly retarded admission ala saying "we are failures that can't read our opponents", but there's nothing that comes even close to Westoids' open hypocrisy


Oh wow, you actually made a good point. You don't do that often.
>if they are, then it's one big fascist civil war.
This is true. It is a civil war. Ukraine and Russia are the same, and more than that, the current Russian state did everything to mimick western ones perfectly. Posters itt don't want to admit it a lot of the time. All the Nazi tendencies that exist in Ukraine also exist in Russia and all other FSU countries, it's just that THE STATE DOESN'T USE THEM AS A POLICY GUIDE.
But you take it too far, of course. To any historical materialist, the difference is real change done by these states and people, not what they say. And real change done by the current Russian state is unmistakably beneficial: western capital is now losing in Palestine, Africa, the Red Sea, dedollarization, industry, and so on.
The same states are still being put in vastly different positions. The Russian state was dragged kicking and screaming into actually taking a stand against western imperialism. None of the people in charge wanted this, they spent decades placating western capital before it turned around and said that only complete surrender will suffice. They will cuck out and run back with happy tears in their eyes at the first opportunity, shuddering at the thought that they had to actually do what the people wanted and not just do vague gestures on TV while having summits with esteemed western partners.
This only means that we are so fucked that even this bullshit is somehow progressive in the historical context. Ukrainians and westerners still openly share Nazi ideology and build their policy on the idea of their enemy's inherent inferiority. Even the people themsleves largely share the idea that da west is inherently superior and that their enemies are only using meat waves in combat.


I mean, Jeffrey Sachs also feels fooled and openly says the Cold War was clearly not about communism but Russia, going back to British antagonism with it. He recognizes this is about an alignment of the Atlantic with European nationalism.


Well, USSR has been saying this since after WW2. Crusade against communism was more of a pre-WW2 thing. When more or less peaceful coexistance happened, all anticommunist rhetoric was just about antagonizing USSR/Russia's economic interests


>Posters itt don't want to admit it a lot of the time. All the Nazi tendencies that exist in Ukraine also exist in Russia and all other FSU countries, it's just that THE STATE DOESN'T USE THEM AS A POLICY GUIDE.
Putin cracking down on Russian Nazis/Ultra-Nats is bought up every time the accusation is bought up.


how thick is it? no projectile is going to cut through unlimited thickness of armor just because of the material it's made of.


>All the Nazi tendencies that exist in Ukraine also exist in Russia and all other FSU countries, it's just that THE STATE DOESN'T USE THEM AS A POLICY GUIDE.

That's wrong. Russia is appeasing it's minorities instead of russifying them. "National building", if you can call it that, in FSU consists of russophobia with the purpose of oppressing Russians into becoming, say, Ukrainians. There's also oppression of minorities, like against Rusyns, or against Abkhazians or Ossetians, and it's all very, very tiresome


I meant that the Russian state doesn't use it as a policy guide, unlike Ukraine and the west.


And if we talk about fascism, not nazism, well, this shit is everywhere when capitalism is in open decay. Westoids for some reason think that their extremely illegitimate, unvoted for, pseudo-democratic governments are less fascistic than what they call autocratic regimes.

How that proves that Russia is as bad as Ukraine, then? What the hell even is your point


File: 1717844171475.mp4 (2.18 MB, 576x1024, 17178399077410.mp4)

IMO this is better than remaking Lenin into a Vader statue, or vandalizing murals to liberators into DC comics advertisement


>How that proves that Russia is as bad as Ukraine, then? What the hell even is your point
Think they are just saying Ukraine chose EVROPAN fascism while Russia chose multi-ethnic republicanism on otherwise similar ideological bedrock. Russia's confronting the West isn't because of ideological difference but because the West wouldn't settle for less than the balkanization of the Russian Federation in order to make its resources easier to exploit.


>How that proves that Russia is as bad as Ukraine, then?
It doesn't. It just means that the Russian state wasn't put in a position where using Nazi ideology and killing millions makes sense, but Ukraine was.


Neighbouring Belarus has no need for repressing Russians for "national building" purposes. Shit Ukraine's doing is a choice, not a happenstance


File: 1717845000754.mp4 (16.64 MB, 720x1280, 17178432797040.mp4)


File: 1717845741755-0.jpg (325.72 KB, 1280x1016, 17178436134090.jpg)

File: 1717845741755-1.mp4 (2.77 MB, 848x512, 17178436134421.mp4)

U-ukr bros????


It's trainer aircraft yak-52


Probably learn to take off and land in it once and then it's off to the front in an F-16


Seems like they dropped the news angle for First Thought, it's supposed to be like their documentary channel now I guess.


>Korea was famously declared a "police action" down to Western Korean war veterans being refused membership in veterans associations for not having been deployed to a "war".
topkek. Never ceases to amaze me how these normie americans always fall for the miserly traps of the american labour aristocrats.


What the fuck? Did this guy just get abducted?


no they dropped the news show format, its a news-style explainer channel now like vox


File: 1717860395965.jpg (107.98 KB, 786x788, fear.jpg)

>still believing Russian lies to justify the invasion in 2024
simple debunk for you: Kharkov is a Russian-speaking city with over 30% of its population identifying as Russian ethnically

the insurrection in Kharkov failed in 2014, yet there was no "genocide" nor even purges

as you can see, if Motorola-Girkin types does not take power in Ukrainian regions, literally nothing happens and people keep living in peace until the full-blown Russian war effort


yes if he doesn't cancel his nitro trial subscription soon they'll start charging his card




> fascist coups only murder your family if you successfully resist them
Weird angle


>yet there was no "genocide" nor even purges
lol, lmao even.dude i vividly remember a mainstream western article about kharkov and how some new militia was gonna impose a "ukrainian order" there and that was the media trying to glaze ukraine.there were purged, idiot. they were just extra-judicial, like every right-wing regime loves to do. youre naive at best, strupid to the point of evil at worst.


who is this?


File: 1717864022144-0.png (371.97 KB, 680x644, ClipboardImage.png)

You think this war will be over before winter? Because I don't think Ukrainian cities can make through the next heating season with their non nuclear energy generation estroyed.


>lets ignore all the reports of nazi militias setting up shop and systematically killing and torturing opponents
kys glowie


I would simply not get shot


antidrone warfare


>just don't resist fascists and they won't kill you, look at Czechoslovakia


> look at Czechoslovakia
You mean the time when a revanchist dictatorship used a flimsy excuse of "oppressed minorities" to justify their imperialist aggression? Yes, that is a good argument for why Russian influence should be resisted, though I wouldn't call it fully fascist, just regular old cleptocratic authoritarianism.


>still seething that some pieces of lifeless rock were bulldozed
What was that quote by Marx about the capitalists crying for the brutal violence against mortar and rock?


>the sudetenland cope
willful ignorance. russia isn't dismantling versailles, europe has been dismantling post-cold war peace with NATO expansion and this went into overdrive with the Ukraine crisis, which drove it against the Russian population. It was admitted that Minsk was used to buy time for war, impossible to implement, and that both 'deoccupation' and derussification (cultural genocide) are needed to save the failed Ukrainian state. There's no evidence Russian revanchism as some German parallel has been driving the Ukraine crisis, it's the decay of the Ukrainian state after its failed reform and subsequently the decay of liberal democracy in the West that drove it to imperialist war against Russia and China. The SMO was entirely provoked by the events of 2021, which is sourced in Biden's aggressive foreign policy.


Why do you respond to an obvious glow uighur?

>inb4 he claims to be a moron for free


What next, glowie, are you going to say that defending USSR and clearing it's name off propagandistic filth like holodomor or great terror is useless and bad optics?





>Let’s first spell out exactly what he says:

< Ukraine loses 50,000 men per month, both irrecoverable and sanitary losses, i.e. total casualties included wounded, KIA, etc.

< The ratio of their wounded to irrecoverable/KIA is 50/50, which means out of 50k, 25k of them are actually irrecoverable losses. (note: this is a high proportion to wounded because of Ukraine’s comparative lack of battlefield medicine which causes far more wounded to die, not to mention Russia’s usage of powerful airstrikes/bombs which proportionally simply kills far more soldiers outright)

< Ukraine mobilizes 30,000 new men per month from the street.

< The ratio between Russian and Ukrainian losses is 1:5 in favor of Russia.

< The ratio of POWs is 1,348 to 6,465 in favor of Russia.

>The Russian MOD’s official tally of total Ukrainian losses is about 500,000 as of the last reporting a bit over a month ago:

>Thus, given that the 500k figure is an official Russian MOD figure which Putin presumably would not contradict, we can only assume that Russian losses are therefore 1/5 of that, which would be ~100k.

>Recall that MediaZona/BBC have the supposedly confirmed Russian names of what is now ~54,000 KIA. They claim this is only Russian troops and does not count DPR/LPR, which they claim is a further ~23k or so dead. They further extrapolate their confirmed name count of 54k to be about 84k total dead based on their assumption that they cannot confirm every actual death.

>Thus, using the above, we can assume that the KIA on Russia’s side could be something like: 54k (Russia) + 23k (LDNR) = 77k; or their extrapolated estimate of 84k + 23k = ~107k.

>However, that is just KIA alone. That doesn’t count Russia’s “irrecoverable losses”, which are people maimed or too injured to fight again. Russia’s irrecoverable are far smaller than that of Ukraine due to the far superior Russian battlefield medicine and ability to evacuate injured troops in time to save their limbs, etc. This is due to having helicopters and other transports far more readily available. Even so, we can estimate there’s got to be at least another 20-40k irrecoverable if not more—and I’ve seen some credible related figures that obliquely lead me to believe it’s not much more than that.

>Then, if you figure that KIA/irrecoverable are typically about 25-35% of all wounded, we can assume total wounded may be another 150-250k which obviously refers to people not only so lightly wounded that they return to war, but that they even count twice, three times or more on the tally because they get re-wounded several times over the course of the war. Thus 300k “wounded” may actually only represent 100-200k real people, for instance; there are many people that can get multiple ‘purple hearts’.

>The point I’m trying to make is that the official U.S. “casualty” number for Russia is something like 350k, and counting lightly wounded this may very well actually be relatively accurate. However, if you count wounded for Ukraine as well, the total “casualties” of every kind could be far north of 1 million. Ukraine may have 500k total “irrecoverable” losses as per the official Russian MOD figure, and then an additional hundreds of thousands of regular wounded who are forced to return to combat. Recall Putin said the ratio is 50/50, which would entail 500k additional wounded for a total casualty list of 1 million.


>muh ww2
libshit retards know only one war


Guys, what is the "situation of woman in Russia"? Are like, the conditions of living for woman bad in Russia, or something? Are they being mistreated or not allowed to participate on power, or something like that?


Well they aren't being forced into prostitution en masse like Ukrainian women so there's that.


NATO dronies still think Russia has lost 500k men lol


Oh, the usual. Moms keep buggering feminists about grandkids, and the state wants more babies while the state programs are clearly not up to the task of saving the demographics


>On the topic of mobilization, Putin says that the U.S. administration is now pressuring Ukraine to lower the mobilization age all the way to 18 and, most critically, that they only need Zelensky as the scapegoat to pass the law to do that. Once they force him to lower it to 18, they will get rid of him. Putin even gives the exact timeline: he believes it will take about a year from today, and by next Spring they will boot Zelensky out as there are several “other candidates” they have in mind:

>Also it should be noted that in the section directly after this, he states that this is all due to ongoing losses and that the earlier quoted 50,000 per month are “just the losses we can see (confirm) on the battlefield”. He states that there are likely far more losses even deeper in the strategic depth where Russia cannot estimate them:

And remember, implicit in Putin’s one year projection for Zelensky’s downfall is the message that Putin believes the Ukrainian war will go on even longer than that. If he believes it will take a year just for them to get down to 18 year olds, then there will have to be quite some time after that for Russia to grind through the last mobilization bracket. That being said, my long time prediction for the war’s end has been somewhere in Q2 or middle of 2025, so it could track with that.

Here's to two more glorious years of posting in this thread lads


>b b b but muh orc meat waves



>Conscription and rationing: Germany’s plan for war with Russia

>Germany releases 67-page document outlining how country is expecting war with Russia in next five years

First as tragedy, second as farce, but a third time? When will these fucking krauts learn?


Women still make up the majority of scientists and doctors in Russia, although that's completely a Soviet legacy obviously




they also make up half of all corporate board members lmao


They absolutely are tho.


Idle hands and so on


lol, that would be a good stat to show to people, got any source for that, that sounds really good


File: 1717879974392.png (3.12 MB, 1600x900, ClipboardImage.png)

How is NATO this bad at fighting


File: 1717882228993.png (575.92 KB, 640x470, ClipboardImage.png)

imperialism was, is, and continues to be a paper tiger.


>When will these fucking krauts learn?
this is the US/UK war mongering. we are still occupied and our current govt are mere servants of the anglo empire. the german population is opposed to this with over 75% in polls.


File: 1717882391984.png (262.63 KB, 604x847, schnezz truppe 11.png)

so funny that they let themselves get dragged to back into war with Russia by the burgers when only 5 years ago they were leaning into energy dependency upon Russia. Also so much for NATO being about "keeping the Germans down and the Russians out." It seems to be entirely about keeping the Russians out these days.


I hope this somehow shows in the elections too…


libs don't even know WW2 since they have a revisionist narrative where WW2 started with Hitler and Stalin making a pact to rape Poland together


Ukrainians taking such a obvious bait is hilarious, choosing to risk the loss of Chasiv Yar and Konstantinovka to stop ~20% of the Russian's Kharkiv reserves


File: 1717883331819.png (431.95 KB, 667x861, ClipboardImage.png)

Good lord it is so over for Ukraine. Literally begging people for flight miles.


Unfortunately, the only good German state was liquidated in 1989. I guess the next few years, when we will see the "benefits" of deindustrialisation applied to the German economy, are going to be quite interesting.


Kind of assumes all of those battalions are full strength.


My theory is that these battallions are not at full strength but have not been merged and re-constituted for PR and morale reasons, leading to what we see here.


say what you will about merkel, schröder, kohl and their austerity anti worker neoliberalism, at least they werent complete cucks and turbo warmongers. they kept us out of burger imperialism in iraq, libya and syria.

we will get atlantishit warmongers in power regardless, all mainstream parties have purged their eurocentrist factions


They’re committing this much force and still can’t capture the town lmao



soo, any proofs any significant % of Russian speakers in Kharkov suffering anything

or did you see some pro-UA reactionaries fighting pro-RU reactionaries once and proclaimed it a fascist dictatorship doing a genocide?

in Kharkov? IDF has been doing it for years too and we have tons of proofs

but UA "nazis" seem to be excellent at stealth


Imagine comparing a fascist puppet like Zelensky to By the Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Elect of God.


>every conflict that ever happens everywhere is WW2.
>The West is always the good guys. And the West's adversary is always bent on world domination (unless we stop them!)
>The correct course of action is always military escalation, or else you're Chamberlain appeasing Hiter.
it is so fucking tiresome


>He said: “We need a central plan like in the first or second world war. If governments have an existential demand, a company should not have the ability to make as much profit as they want. It should be regulated. Industrial warfare requires national institutions and a Nato-level industrial warfare committee, which would regulate prices
who could imagine such a thing


The funniest part is Americans do this the most and they're objectively the least hard-hit by WW2. It's clear why this framing is used tho: WW2 was the last time the US fought on the good side, the last truly moral war.


It's simple and the dyes are easy to come by. Alot of vexilogical decisions come down to "can a child memorise this at a glance and draw it" and "how the fuck do you expect me to get purple and hot pink dye? In this economy?"


>>1880358 (me) this was meant to be in the trans flag thread but I'm posting on lynx and don't have the password cookie to delete.


The ruZZians advance in absolute panic as the ukrainian army retreats victoriously


>One of the contemporary politicians most influenced by the past is the Estonian prime minister, Kaja Kallas, and not just because of her country’s occupation by Russia or her personal family history of exile.
Inshallah the Balts shall soon be a memory.

>Her favourite historian, Prof Tim Snyder, adds a twist by reimagining 1938 as a year in which Czechoslovakia, like Ukraine in 2022, had chosen to fight: “So you had in Czechoslovakia, like Ukraine, an imperfect democracy. It’s the farthest democracy in eastern Europe. It has various problems, but when threatened by a larger neighbour, it chooses to resist. In that world, where Czechoslovakia resists, there’s no second world war.”

Lmao, of course they drag out an idiotic liar like Snyder. At least the article later hints that this idea is completely idiotic. It's hilarious that adults who consider themselves intelligent actually believe that "bullies are cowards so stand up to them and they'll back down!".


It might be 100 battalions on paper but 3/4 of the manpower is probably undeclared dead with the officers pocketing the pay.


Never ask a Brazilian volunteer what his great-grandfather was doing during WWII.


What he did during WW2?


>Here's to two more glorious years of posting in this thread lads
We'll just rename it /germ/ when they day comes.


1 /taiwan/ or /korea/ please


You know its kinda funny, I just suddenly remembered in 2021, the standard lib talking point was saying the reason Russia was going to invade the Ukraine was because there was a water crisis in Crimea and the Russians needed to destroy a dam on the Dneiper River and get a land bridge to Crimea. With the complete failure of the Ukrainian counteroinkfensyiv last summer, it has become clear that even the best outcome for the Ukraine is a Cucktin moment where a Korea style peace is made at the current lines. However, because the libs have successfully changed the narrative from the Russians wanting to secure Crimea to the Russians wanted to annex all of the Ukraine and kill every Ukrainian, this will seem like a Ukrainian victory rather than a Russian one


The current narrative is Putler is going to take all of Europe if not stopped in Ukraine. Because Westoid leaders know Ukrainians are still seen mostly as sub-human Easterners.


Yeah, you're right. I guess it would be more accurate to say that the only war they invoke is ww2, but their understanding of it is basically on par with movies like Captain America.


As mighty as the glorious nation of Czechoslovakia was, I have a hard time believing that they could have held off, much less defeated, fucking Germany.


Yeah. And Snyder is basically blaming WWII on Czechoslavakia being pussies. Completely absolving the Western Allies of their complicity in forcing the Czechs to capitulate.


Didn't France or Britain basically say that if they accept Soviet Union's offer of protection, the would take on the character of crusade against Bolshevism and it would be "hard for them to stay neutral"?


Soviets offered to protect Czechoslovakia? Proofs?


The Czechoslovak–Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance that followed Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance in 1935 are public knowledge, and public record, dumdum.

>Russia’s involvement in the Czechoslovakian crisis of 1938 stemmed from two sources. Firstly, the USSR’s commitment to collective resistance against Nazi aggression and expansionism — a policy which Litvinov had affirmed time and time again in public statements in 1936–7. Secondly, there was the Soviet-Czechoslovak mutual assistance treaty of 1935 under which the Soviet Union pledged military aid to Czechoslovakia in the event of an attack on that country by a third party. Soviet assistance was, however, conditional upon France, which also had a mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia, simultaneously fulfilling its aid obligations — a clause inserted in the Soviet-Czechoslovak treaty of 1935 at the suggestion of Benes/ , the Czech President.


>"Through all phases of the Czechoslovak drama, the Soviet Union alone of all the Great Powers vigorously championed the independence and national rights of Czechoslovakia. Seeking to justify themselves in the eyes of public opinion, the Governments of Great Britain and France hypocritically declared that they did not know whether or not the Soviet Union would live up to its pledges, given to Czechoslovakia in accordance with the treaty of mutual assistance. But this was a deliberate lie, for the Soviet Government had publicly declared its willingness to stand up for Czechoslovakia against Germany in accordance with the terms of that treaty, which called for simultaneous action on the part of France in defense of Czechoslovakia. France, however, refused to discharge her duty. Notwithstanding all this, the Soviet Government declared on the eve of the Munich deal that it was in favor of convening an international conference to render practical aid to Czechoslovakia and to take practical measures for the preservation of peace."
- J. V. Stalin "Falsificators of History".


>Soviet assistance was, however, conditional upon France, which also had a mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia, simultaneously fulfilling its aid obligations — a clause inserted in the Soviet-Czechoslovak treaty of 1935 at the suggestion of Benes/ , the Czech President.



From what I understand that dam basically controlled the water supply to Crimea, which made libtard claims that the Russians blew it up even more idiotic.



Putin spent 8 years trying to put Donbass back into Ukraine, retard.


Yes the delay from 2014 to 2022 makes the Putler claims ridiculous. The only objective of Putin has been to keep Crimea open to Russian forces. He fell into this war because he didn't understand it wasn't a minor dispute over spheres of interest but Western need to subjugate Russia in its entirety in order to prop up their economy to fight the Chinese.


the tl;dr of this entire thing is
"polish pussy got me so fucked up i belive that its a 21st century ideological conflict like some dumb nazi"


this entire war is putler going cartwheeling through the air like charlie brown after the west pulls up the football for the 10,000th time.

since he's a country-selling fascist at heart, cucktin keeps trying to suck up to the west and they keep hammering a railroad spike through his cock over and over. it would be funny if it didn't get so many people killed.


also NATO has spent 70 years massacring farmers and children, the last time they fought an actual war was korea.

the problem is, fundamentally, is that the arms dealers essentially dictate tactics to them. NATO's gear is all too expensive to use, meaning that their advantages on paper do not transfer to a prolonged conflict. but they cant change, because more expensive equipment is more profitable equipment.


the best strategy NATO's finest generals could come up with was literally banzai charging into a minefield.


Yes but luckily for the world, NATO has become so insane they won't even let Cucktin cuck and the entire imperialist world order is coming down


File: 1717912138601.gif (979.72 KB, 220x258, 16902879837110.gif)

Lmao, Westoid cucks are getting their supply lines between Africa and Madagascar threatened by Comores siding with Russia and China. They need to get South Africa on board with sanctioning Israel hard, so that Atlantic and Indian oceans become disconnected



cucktin is such a little weasel cuck. he helped sell the russian people to sex trafficking gangsters and thought that after he shoveled 20 million soviets into the gaping maw of capitalism, they would let him eat at the table. then in 2002 they told him to fuck off, that NATO existed to destroy Russia and he STILL spent another 20 years licking their boots clean and dreaming every night of the taste of their cocks.

he is the absolute softest cuck who has ever lived and the west is still getting beaten by him lmao.


boris yeltsin typed up this post on his computer from hell


putin was literally one of yeltsin's best friends and closest confidants.


We don't talk about that in russia, big brain real politik.


That's not really true. Putin was (and is) a cuck, but he was chosen specifically because he wasn't too associated with Yeltsin and because Yeltsin believed that he could trust him to not have him prosecuted as anyone else would have. It was basically one class of Soviet traitors (bureaucrats) transferring power to another class of Soviet traitors (KGB)


File: 1717913444083.png (393.36 KB, 687x785, ClipboardImage.png)

>tfw lukashenko will never rule the union state


Is there anyone that wasn't a traitor


File: 1717913574787.png (320.47 KB, 1736x2048, ClipboardImage.png)

no, the reality is Putin just had no power at the time. putin's mentor, anatoly sobchak, literally wrote yeltsin's constitution. he was as responsible, if not moreso, than anyone else for what happened in the 1990s.

putin was hand picked by sobchak and sponsored all the way up the ranks.



Don't care, didn't ask.


the CPSU continued fighting until yeltsin literally shelled the white house in 1993, then Cucktin's best friend sobchak legitimized what was in reality a coup against the legitimately elected government of the soviet union.


ahh i see you've come out of the closet as a literal putin stooge now, eh?

i guess they already allow anarchists to post here, what's one more fascist for good measure?


Sure but at the end of the day, post-Maidan Ukraine is the true ideological successor to Yeltsin's Russia


File: 1717914075660.gif (845.33 KB, 300x300, 1423781962538.gif)

I know the entire "both sides bad" campaign got completely btfo in the past years, and "West good" is a non-starter, but "Russia/Putin not radical enough" isn't going to go any better for you, I promise.

Cope, seethe, and mald, you stupid glowie uighurfaggot.


putin is a far right violent anti-communist and so are you.


Nah Putin is just being forced against his will into resisting Western Imperialism. If he could capitulate and maintain the present territories of the Russian Federation he would. But the West requires the shattering of the RF into small countries so that Western porkies can directly exploit the natural resources and garrison troops to threaten China.


Okay, make it less obvious and less insipid.

>Why is /leftypol/ cheering for Putin/Hamas? Don't they know that they would kill you all?

And get new material.


Yes and? Personal desires are immaterial, only the reality of the situation exists


only because NATO told putin to eat shit in 2002.

he was perfectly willing to join them and help their crusade against china.

putin is objectively a rightist just like you are objectively a dumbass. putin can oppose NATO and still be a rightist. do you think churchill was cool too because he fought hitler? are you like, actually retarded?


File: 1717915766337.png (38.05 KB, 141x198, 1575687124440.png)

>putin is objectively a rightist just like you are objectively a dumbass. putin can oppose NATO and still be a rightist.


don't disagree but this is kinda a bad example because churchill was more right wing than hitler


your meds, take them


so is cucktin. neoliberalism is to the right of nazism economically.


putin himself has admitted he tried to join NATO in 2002.


and it didn't happen
how about a conversation on the things that did happen and are happening?


It goes pretty far in "explaining" why the US has so many military bases around the world, it protects all those nations from any evil superpower that might be hell bent on global domination ;^)


So did Stalin, btw.


Yes, and Stalin miscalculating Anglo-American perfidy was his greatest mistake.


It was more to prove they were the enemy


Stalin made a series of mistakes after WWII by thinking the Truman-Churchill axis could be as reasonable as Roosevelt had been. Similar to Putin he kept trying to negotiate even while the Anglo-Americans were showing naked aggression.


Yeah I fucking hate Stalin but asking to join NATO was a baller move


Putin is not more right wing than Hitler wtf you talking about. you are really failing at this bothside shtick and that cucktin isn't going far enough. You are also arguing about hypotheticals which just shows desperation and coping.


>Yeah I fucking hate Stalin
>Stalin and Putin's problem is they weren't as aggressive and warmongering as the anglos


Stalin couldn't even help the communists in Greece, he was a straight bitch. Real brave when it came to killing his fellow comrades but not when it came to actually trying to spread communism


<We should be passive in response to aggression and hold the moral high ground against the Bourgeois!
Cringe liberalism.


>Misrepresenting a post just to reply


<Reversing who committed the initial offence.
Cringe liberalism


Nazis launched one of the world's first privatisation programs. They're about the same as neolibs in terms of right wing economic policy hence why Marxists correctly summarize Fascism as Liberalism's retarded child. Pinochet's Chile Vs Hitler's Germany what was the difference minus a war?


>Pinochet's Chile Vs Hitler's Germany what was the difference minus a war?
Sex appeal.


Had I gotten it wrong though? If you think not being as aggressive and warhungry as the anglos is about passivity and being on the moral high ground, then clearly your opinion is that Stalin should have fought fire with fire.

The reason why he was such a successful leader is because he put the right amount of aggression in the right places, it's the US's warmongering that got it wrapped up in Korea which pretty much set the tone for them for the rest of the Cold War.


how evil of him to not break the yalta agreements and start ww3


File: 1717921782939.png (40.52 KB, 238x217, 1713309347134.png)

>the "not radical enough" posting just went full retard


The west was flagrantly intervening in their favour all through the world though from the moment WW2 ended.


Yeah with loads of embarrassing and costly losses that funnily enough the Soviet didn't do themselves until liberals took over in the 80s.


yeah embarassing losses like flipping the entirety of europe to their side outside of the warsaw pact while the soviets did nothing?


They didn't get flipped by NATO, those nations were temporarily embarrassed imperialists that just returned to the imperial core once they were ridden of Nazis, the Warsaw Pact on the other hand was on the periphery of the imperialist core and they became Communist at the end of the war.

So really by "nothing" you mean "didn't start WW3" like Colonel Sanders would have done.


what exactly should the soviets have done


there's a whole lot they could have done outside of starting WW3. Greece wasn't even in NATO until 1952 so the soviets were well within their rights to support the KKE


>They didn't get flipped by NATO, those nations were temporarily embarrassed imperialists that just returned to the imperial core once they were ridden of Nazis, the Warsaw Pact on the other hand was on the periphery of the imperialist core and they became Communist at the end of the war.
>all the countries that weren't taken over by communists must've been evil bourgeois and all the warsaw pact countries that spent half their existence as part of that sphere trying to desperately get out of it and did get out of it as soon as the soviet union weakened were all willing participants

Marxist brainrot never ceases to amaze. You dipshits even screwed over ACTUAL worker's movements in an attempt to get your delusional "utopia" (thanks Roza Luxembourg, may you rot in piss).


Are you Greek per chance? Because you're ignoring the support provided to China, Korea, Vietnam and numerous other nations who either had successful local revolutions or otherwise governments opposed to US hegemony, incalculable support in preventing US global domination until liberals took over, but you're hyperfixating on Greece.

Unfortunately Europe outside of the Warsaw Pact was off the table for the same reason NATO is threatening the entire world now with WW3 over Russia moving an inch westward.


>all the countries that weren't taken over by communists must've been evil bourgeois
That's not the claim being made, the fact is those nations were the core of imperialism and you're saying just attack and invade after surviving an actual genocide attempt and taking Berlin more or less single handedly.

>all the warsaw pact countries that spent half their existence as part of that sphere

This is obviously wrong for the simple reason that Czechoslovakia and Poland were considered expendable for the imperial core in a way that France wasn't.

>were all willing participants

A lot more willing than your professor at liberal arts college would have you believe.


>The country that just experienced the most horrific WW2 casualties and took the most infrastructure damage out of all Allied forces should have immediately launched into another war against the largely unaffected and still at full strength America
Not sure if retarded or just a gamer who played too much Hearts of Iron thinking he has unlimited population and logistical capacity.


File: 1717923570311.png (74.41 KB, 625x626, 1384311114369.png)


>NATO is threatening the entire world now with WW3 over Russia moving an inch westward.
Sorry Russkie anon but NATO isn't threatening shit they're just breaking every single one of Putin's redlines and laughing over it. Ukraine can now launch strikes against Russian territory and Russia isn't even reciprocating (launching strikes against Ukrop resupply lines and factories in other countries).


>launching strikes against Ukrop resupply lines and factories in other countries
Cool, at least we burn down the whole eurocuckland this time. Bad news the rest of the northern hemisphere comes with them and us.


File: 1717924087128.png (766.54 KB, 729x584, ClipboardImage.png)

USSR wanted a neutral belt of countries around itself to create an effect akin to having a mountain range separating it from the enemy. Before 1952, neither Greece or Turkey were in NATO, so there was a solid wall of "white" countries, plus Germany could have been neutral

I dunno, maybe this was a mistake hoping for such a wall, maybe Soviets didn't do enough, or maybe they should have instead try to turn white countries red. Hindsight is hindsight


Sorry, is this just pretending like Russia doesn't attack Poland in kind because they're concerned about an angry letter from Stoltenberg?


Actually it's due to a major oversight in the Ruzzian personality matrix. Remember how Ruzzians made fun of Liz Truss nonstop for saying she would annihilate any country in a nuclear exchange? The Soviet propaganda against Americans bombing Japan in WW2 led to a cultural environment in which nuclear weaponry was seen as a major taboo and never to be launched under basically any circumstance. This carried over to the Russian Federation as basically all new "regime" people still grew up with that background and cultural aversion. So Putin and the rest will never nuke anyone or anything but they also cannot also just announce that to the world so they continue with this ridiculous game of bluffing that NATO can see right through.


I mean I would say that having more allies is definitely better than a neutral zone. I mean did Stalin et al think Europe would just remain frozen forever? Of course the so called neutral countries would slide one way or the other over time, you can't actually be neutral in the long term. But when one of the neutral countries is actively having a communist civil war then supporting them is a no brainer IMO.


It's stating that Russia will never touch Poland since they're weaklings even though Poland is constantly resupplying Ukraine but Ukraine can touch Russia proper (outside of Donbass) and Russia just accepts it in submission like cucks.


Socialism in one country is actual idea, it's not a compromise or an excuse.

>Russia just accepts it in submission like cucks.
Again you're still pretending the consequences of that is an angry letter. I understand the west was willing to risk a nuclear retaliation but that's not an act of strength or bravery, more like desperation.


>Socialism in one country is actual idea

it's a fucking shitty and cowardly idea


Well, Sweden and Finland both tended towards USSR, France kept abandoning NATO, Spain wasn't allowed in under Franco, Austria remained neutral, Germany was refused it's neutral status, Yugoslavia flipflopped, Turkey was couped, Greece was terrorized. To be honest, Euros weren't important in the grand scheme of things, China, Asia, Africa were much more important. USA kind of got itself a loser's prize in all of this


Why doesn't Russia start droning Polish factories like Ukraine drones Russian oil refineries? NATO will not go nuclear over Russia doing what they're doing. But Cucktin doesn't even try to reciprocate. WEAK.


China being a beacon of progress and development will turn more countries red than a military conquest or couping or whatever. USSR had a similar effect on the world before Stalin's death, just look at China


>Cowardly idea
So is not flying planes into aircraft carriers, kamakaze was an incredibly brave style of fighting, it just happened to also be really fucking retarded.


>Socialism in one country is actual idea
Doesn't count because CIA approved westoid theorycucks says so.


Kamikaze was actually pretty logical, it's just that the whole war itself was retarded and unwinnable


Well like I said, NATO are acting out of desperation right now. The entire SMO started with Russia crossing NATO's red line that they thought Russia would be too scared to ever cross for fear of retaliation, the second Russia moved westwards despite direct warnings from NATO not to do so, that completely upended all conventional thinking within NATO about their presence in Europe.
Leaders claiming that this war is existential for NATO isn't *just* preformative hysterics to push populations into compliance with risking their lives with nuclear war, a major assumption that gave confidence to NATO was proven wrong, with that anything is possible as far as they're concerned.

If Russia then crosses the next big NATO red line and actually attacks a NATO nation directly, the panik will get worse on their end and they quite likely will over-react, unironically keeping a level head in war is more of a sign of strength than just lashing out and trying to escalate the situation until it's wildly out of control.


>It's logical, in the context of trying to fight a war you've already lost
Good post, upvoted.


>The reason why he was such a successful leader is because he put the right amount of aggression in the right places, it's the US's warmongering that got it wrapped up in Korea which pretty much set the tone for them for the rest of the Cold War.
And the US "won" the Cold War. A large part because the USSR kept trying to play to Bourgeois respectability.

If the USSR had gone for it in 1945 they might have had a few cities nuked by the Americans but I don't think we would be living through this era of darkest reaction. Though of course we have the benefit of hindsight.


>So is not flying planes into aircraft carriers, kamakaze was an incredibly brave style of fighting, it just happened to also be really fucking retarded.
I'd argue the issue with kamikaze attacks was that they were largely used after Japan had lost air superiority. The number of dead pilots would have been the same if the Japanese had just been trying to drop torpedoes.


>Stalin should have got himself and his civilian nuked to achieve what the western proletariat could and should have done themselves
Gee whiz talk about cowardice, let a man who died in 1953 make the ultimate sacrifice for millions for our benefit and he's a cuck for not doing so.

See answer A. there's no logic in fighting a war you've already lost.


USA won the Cold War, while losing the entire capitalist world, except for Europe + Japan. Imperialist world as a result has shrunk, while "the jungle" grew. By now, imperialists are eating each other alive in a singluar alliance that can't even coordinate itself, with USA hollowing out EU and GB and Japan and Australia and Canada


>the panik will get worse on their end and they quite likely will over-react
Unfortunately I think the panic response will be thermonuclear. NATO is currently not a rational opponent. Maybe they'll blink if Russia annexes the Balts in a day. Maybe the contradictions between the EU and US will tear the alliance apart. But I think far more likely the delusional liberals will keep escalating until nuclear weapons are used.

Remember the will of the population is irrelevant when it comes to nuclear war. There is no need to conscript. The missiles are already sitting in the silos waiting for the launch command.


It'll all fizzle in time. Internal problems of each country compete for attention with external shit like Russia-Ukraine war or China's "aggression" against Taiwan or Israel's genocide in Palestine. When the internal issues win the entire attention span, NATO will collapse


>See answer A. there's no logic in fighting a war you've already lost.
That was my point. The issue wasn't kamikaze attacks, it was the delusion that desperate measures could bring a victory despite logical calculation saying the war was lost. This thread, including myself, has for years thought the Ukrops and their Western backers would give in before complete destruction. I no longer think that is certain.

Yes, and the end result is likely to be Euro-American fascism to put the jungle back in its place. The Nazis were similarly economically doomed before they started WWII.


Our forbears were saying the same thing in the '30s.


They didn't. Liberals who believed in "pacifying" Hitler by feeding him Czechoslovakia with the aim of isolating USSR were, probably, thinking that, but the rest of the world saw this shit for what it actually was.


The original comparison here was for an Anon claiming that socialism in one country was a "cowardly" idea and I was merely demonstrating that "bravery" isn't always smart.


>result is likely to be Euro-American fascism to put the jungle back in its place

Result will be USA extracting everything of value out of it's European colonies, and then wars to put down rebellions against US suzerainship. We've already seen the attempts made to kill president of Slovakia, for example. For the jungle we will see at most a Ukraine-like scenario of NATO and USA shitting themselves, refusing to surrender, and slowly being squeezed out.


Every day NATO's threats fail to scare Russia into turning back is another day of humiliation for NATO considering what their attitude was like up until 2022. The most damaging assumptions to be proven wrong was the expectation that Russian military action would result in a strong and uniform display of opposition amongst all NATO nations and that couldn't have been farther from the truth.

Though NAFOids like to claim that NATO has shown such solidarity, so much so that non-NATO nations joined JUST to show their solitary with NATO's mission, gas pipelines don't get blown up to remove reasons for potential moderate stances on said mission within NATO if they were so confident of that.


I'm referencing the "third period".

Socialism in one country was the cope after the German revolution was choked. It wasn't cowardly, it was the only choice other then immediate surrender. I'm talking about the late '40s when there were other paths the USSR could have gone down.


Oh, and by the way. Have you noticed how distinctly "second class" Europeans have become to Americans? They get treated like shit, and Xi gets better reception in American cities than European "leaders"


The US is still operating "respectably" itself. When the time comes they'll be openly assassinating even white people who don't toe the line.


>Socialism in one country was the cope

It wasn't. Trotsky's position was a call for world revolution (not actual revolution, just the call), and obviously the corrent position was "socialism in one country", as in, develop the base of the revolution and then project the accomplishments to win over the world. It works for China this very fucking moment, and it worked for USSR as well


Socialism is a science, you don't have cope, you have hypothesises, experiments and results. Often the result disappoint us but we can't ignore them, permanent revolution is basically the Marxist equivalent of creationism, derived from a complete unwillingness to abandon a pre-existing idea despite the evidence disproving it out of orthodoxy.


Most Western Europeans would lick dog shit from the shoes of American soldiers to get protection from the "asiatic hordes". Just look at Eastern European liberals if you want to imagine what Western Europeans will be like in ten years.

>It wasn't. Trotsky's position was a call for world revolution (not actual revolution, just the call), and obviously the corrent position was "socialism in one country"
Trotsky's position was idealism. As I already said "socialism in one country" was the only real choice but it absolutely was a cope to deal with the failure of the Western European revolution (whose coming was supposed to address many economic deficiencies in the USSR). That's why idealists started sabotage and assassination and why the Party had to be purged.


I feel permanent revolution is an extremely popular idea in the west because it essentially follows the same model as the US bringing "freedom and democracy" to backward nations but the motives are good, as though the reason why US attempts to overthrow governments abroad and solidify the new government's control by attacking all opposition is because its bringing foreign capitalist exploitation instead of communism.
It does fail for that reason, but it's not the only reason, revolution and societal change can only succeed with popular support with the local proletariat, if a revolution is failing then it's because it doesn't have popular support. If the Greeks for example failed to successfully carry out a Marxist revolution and Stalin sent in the Red Army to impose communist rule by force then you've gone from an unsuccessful revolution to a coup attempt instead and that seldom creates a stable and productive environment.

It's not just something Marxists should avoid resorting to, coups being a pretty poor alternative to revolution is universal, Gorbachev tried to bring a liberal (counter)revolution to the USSR and it failed because it didn't get widespread support amongst the population and instead it deteriorated into a liberal coup against proletarian dictatorship to force and impose liberalism which in turn flummoxed into capitalism because the chaos coups bring do not necessarily bring what you or your opposition want, just that of whomever can exploit the chaos most effectively.

If we support the invasion and intervention against any nation that successfully crushes or contains their Marxist movement (i.e nations that are not yet ripe for revolution) then we can tear up their society in the same way Americans do, sure, but like what happens with US conquest, it's far from guaranteed that the pieces fall back into place the way we want and expect them to.


>I feel permanent revolution is an extremely popular idea in the west because it essentially follows the same model as the US bringing "freedom and democracy" to backward nations but the motives are good

you're letting anti trot bias get to you. permanent revolution is actually how a backward country can be a source of intl revolution, not a replacement for western liberal crusades. it's popular in the west (like left communism) because it means world revolution, not constructing a semi-capitalist alternative to the capitalist world system forming in the 20th century. most socialists in the west see the latter as leading to overreliance on the state, bureaucracy, military industry, and so on. isolated dotp in agrarian conditions under permanent assault that unites the imperialists, in some ways stunting class consciousness in both the capitalist and socialist world by leading to market reforms in the socialist world and you know the deal with the western left during the cold war.

obviously the latter proved to be the correct path because, much to everyone's surprise, the semi-periphery ceased to collaborate with the core some decades after 1990s globalization. additionally, the unipolarity of the capitalist world system did not deliver on class consciousness in the imperial core, but actually a renewed kind of liberal-imperialism that is perpetually at war, including now with Western nation-states. instead starting with SIOC, we have examples of alterglobalization to look at to inform what we want out of multipolarity. liberals, ultras, and most trots (WSWS being a notable exception) will be permanently buttblasted at how this means nationalism is proving more progressive than liberalism in making globalization work for the global majority. others on the left will drift towards seeing liberalism as the only internationalist force left in the world, which has been the dominant trend since 2016 when people started linking anti-imperialist states with local populists in rejecting globalization. that's the new post-cold war division of the left


I think I understand what you mean, but I still feel the idea that western leftists see SIOC as creating authoritarian military bureaucracies while PR is supposed to provide a presumably more liberal and I suppose orthodox "utopian socialist" ideals (I dunno if that was Trotsky's opinion, but certainly seems to be that of modern ultras) overnight, still kinda represents the same thinking instilled in them from birth that you intervene in authoritarian states to bestow upon the locals a socioeconomic system that it's assumed everyone already wants.

Where am I going wrong IntBrig?


yea they basically think it means they bring immediate statelessness and gift economy as opposed to state capitalism/bureaucracy and rule of a great nation. they also think it comes from below, internationally and spontaneously
i think when you give up on this belief and the AES it repudiates that, yea, you regress to supporting bourgeois democracy against authoritarian states as creating the conditions for this pure international revolution


I don't think it's that complicated. Western "leftists" are liberals with magical thinking.
PR = Man, we just like rise up broooo and then idk what happens but it will be AWESOME
SIOC = The CIA told me USSR was bad and I believe them


Am I getting PR wrong? Is it not about having the USSR or China taking a much more directly participatory role in global revolutions, like actually sending troops to bolster any and all revolutionary forces regardless of domestic support, instead of supplying a successful revolutionary force with the material required to fight off bourgeois/imperialist counterrevolution?


That's exactly what it is just look at all the people on the Western left crying and complaining and moaning about how China needs to send their military to forcefully overthrow their country and then place them in charge.

Like just stop and think for a moment: most westoids can't even convince their own neighborhood to go socialist and they think China's military forcefully imposing socialism would work? The bourgeoisie would just instantly whip up nationalist sentiment and crush the left again.


Yeah and the hilarious part about it is that SIOC leading by example is apparently prone to authoritarianism and destroys the standing of Marxism amongst the global proletariat, but invading unrevolutionary nations to force them to be communist would ackshually provide a kinder and more liberal communist society.


Are you able to explain your point of view and persuade a normie?
<Russia is a dictatorship and they invaded because they're afraid of Ukraine's democracy
Seems to be the standard opinion, how do you respond? Without scaring the hoes


File: 1717940909709.png (740.39 KB, 593x780, 17179360160620.png)

I wonder if old dudes on the photos ever think about how the current war wouldn't have happened if USSR was still around


Russia held elections during wartime, and Ukraine has refused to. Who's more democratic, exactly?


>how do you respond?
With silence, chew popcorn and just watch global west cannibalize their ""values"" to feed the war effort and MIC.


I mean, I couldn't, you can only persuade people who are open to differing views and the west has worked hard to ensure there are no differing views on Russia.

I suppose the only thing I could (and have in the past) pointed out is that it seems strange that when the border between east and west has moved from Berlin to the Russian border in around 3 decades that we should assume Russia are the expansionists here.




lol didn't iraq hold elections too in the middle of the american invasion


Dont seek any other logic behind one of euroatlantic conglomerate ruling class. Psychie pretty well explained by one particular german book from 1925. There is no point of return tbh, enjoy the last decades of global net as we knew it, and places like leftypol where everyone can shitpost.


Yeah, this anon has it right >>1880687
Because I imagine the comeback to NATO expanding all the way to the Russian border is that it can't be expansionism when NATO membership is voluntary, but it's looking like Georgia is going to show what happens to NATO aspirants that aren't run by NATO puppets.


>you can only persuade people who are open to differing views
I think plenty of people are. People that are already super plugged in (like we are) have their minds made up one way or the other, but most regular people just going about their lives aren't deeply ideologically invested. Especially now with the genocide in Palestine there's more room to criticize our own governments' foreign policy.

It's difficult though, I don't know how to do it without going through the entire history of the cold war etc


You are correct, but universal opposition to something doesn't necessarily need to be ideologically driven, as long as all "respectable" people in your society universally agree that Putin is literally Hitler and only cunts would dare question that, it leaves little doubt in the minds of the average person.


>Are you able to explain your point of view and persuade a normie?
It's a waste of time to engage with people caught up in liberal idealist spooks. They see the world as order-disorder, with the latter encroaching on the former with crisis much like democracy decline as the people get frustrated and turn to demagogic alternatives.

As a result, there's no concept of one system encompassing the garden and the jungle with a dictatorship of one part over another informing the antagonism. It would imply the rise of liberal democracy is based on a foundation that ultimately undoes it so that it causes its own crisis. In this case, Cold War victory led to redivision of the world that caused conflict with Russia and China, especially as the West declined.


Early on I literally showed a person a picture of Azov and they just glazed over and hit me with that flouride stare so I really just don't think anything can get them to see that there is at least a different perspective.


I remember there was quite a lot of hoopla during the Russian World Cup because Ukraine's football kit had "Glory to the heroes" or something written on it and I recall that did get some negative coverage at the time since political slogans in general were banned by FIFA and it was pointed out that the "heroes" the phrase refers to were Nazi collaborators.

Azov and Ukrainian Neo-Nazis were a thing that could be understood and accepted as existent and a problem right up until February 2022, a switch was flipped and that was it, fluoride stares.


>Georgia is going to show what happens to NATO aspirants that aren't run by NATO puppets


I would go as far as saying it's impossible to reason with westerners, it's really over until the West is forced to bend to China's influence : even the working class French or German thinks he have to pay 500€ of gaz per month to stop Putin's madness, that Palestinians are all Al-Quaeda terrorists and that China is a totalitarist dictatorship seeking to take over the world. All of this while the far-right is now at 30-40% in France and that socialists and trots suck the balls of liberals becuse they scared of antagonizing the young post-materialists


>I would go as far as saying it's impossible to reason with westerners
Not impossible comrade, after all a substantial number of comrades here are Western. It's just very difficult and as comrade IntBrig pointed out, kind of senseless, I would add also because we're not really in a position to do anything, knowing more just creates a Cassandra Effect where we all technically know whats going on but no one important is ever going to listen.

Like all the times when Paris burns because of one reason or another, just sit back and eat chips while the garden burns. The West is in the midst of a long, slow slide down the garbage chute, who knows where the bottom is?


GenZeDeng go back


German "Communism" is not welcome in the 21st century. Machines are more causal in the world than you will ever be.


>I would go as far as saying it's impossible to reason with westerners, it's really over until the West is forced to bend to China's influence : even the working class French or German thinks he have to pay 500€ of gaz per month to stop Putin's madness, that Palestinians are all Al-Quaeda terrorists and that China is a totalitarist dictatorship seeking to take over the world. All of this while the far-right is now at 30-40% in France and that socialists and trots suck the balls of liberals becuse they scared of antagonizing the young post-materialists

I largely agree, we are seeing the limits of Western democratic consciousness in understanding non-Western conditions despite claiming universal pretenses that uphold a global system imposed on the world. We largely cannot understand the crisis of this system. Its growing divisions are the product of the people, their intransigence and backwardness. If they feel left behind (within the West) or subjugated (outside of it) it's because they refuse to reform and adapt.

There are two caveats we should have in mind though

1. The average age of the liberal democracies is ridiculously high and that's going to inform the limits of that democratic consciousness. Youth are a bit different. This has created an interesting contradiction in the West. The youth is less middle class and therefore less liberal, but also more universalist in the sense it's able to understand the rest of the world better.

2. Related to 1, the decline of liberal values and yearning for independent politics is growing faster and faster. American desire for a third party and people apathetically tuning out media or election cycles is hitting highs per polls I've seen. The far right, at least in Europe, seems to benefit the most from this.

I think there is an opportunity to push the message that we have no stake in the way capitalism and liberalism divides the world where we chain ourselves to uphold the chains of a global archipelago of metropolitan areas, protecting them from the terra incognita of uncivilization between them. This means arguing the crisis is due to us not extending democracy to the global economic base and instead of defending, out of 'internationalism', the top 15% of the world where the base produced democracy. We can say there has been a failed succession in democracy of sorts as we moved from national to international capitalism where the unity of the latter is now based on division of the former. If liberalism and democracy unites the nation historically (at least in Marxist theory), and reaction divides it (usually along provincial lines), then under globalization liberalism ironically comes to divide along provincial lines (coasts and cities) based on what parts of the nation are most relevant to international capitalism. This reminds me of what I was reading about Vietnam:

>In The Communist Road to Power in Vietnam (1982), Duiker suggests that Hồ Chí Minh's cult of personality is indicative of a larger legacy, one that drew on "elements traditional to the exercise of control and authority in Vietnamese society."[155] Duiker is drawn to an "irresistible and persuasive" comparison with China. As in China, leading party cadres were "most likely to be intellectuals descended [like Hồ Chí Minh] from rural scholar-gentry families" in the interior (the protectorates of Annam and Tonkin). Conversely, the pioneers of constitutional nationalism tended to be from the more "Westernised" coastal south (Saigon and surrounding French direct-rule Cochinchina) and to be from "commercial families without a traditional Confucian background".[156]

So we are dividing the nation-state in order to unite them together, which means committing ourselves to enforcing these divisions else we lose democracy. This leaves an opportunity for something that can claim democracy of the whole people at both the national and international level, meaning we have no need to bind democracy to these divisions


>after all a substantial number of comrades here are Western
90% at minimum


No one cares about loser gayreek sissy femboi communists


Keeping a level head is what is killing Russian soldiers. The only way to stop the bloodletting is to end things and end things quickly. This slow slog is exactly what NATO wants. The population of the EU is 400 million+. Add that to American and British numbers and attrition warfare is highly dis-favorable for Russia. Even in WW1, the attrition war premier example, Russia had other allies to force other fronts. Now it's just Russia alone vs everyone else.

France is testing the grounds for NATO deployment which means this will gradually escalate to other EU member states committing their troops. A surge of NATO troops would be enough to push Russia out of Ukraine.


Russia is winning the war despite what you "cucktin" retards say.


Emmanuel Todd makes an interesting claim about the origin of the decay of the Ukrainian state

1. Its family model was more conducive to liberal democracy and similar to the West. I find this dubious as someone in Poland who can see that the nuclear family is weaker here, but whatever.
2. More importantly, Russia's success with a state model afforded by its more communitarian culture allowed it to build a middle class, overcome oligarchic despotism, and reconcile that middle class with an alternative to liberalism
3. In Ukraine, no such thing happened and the 90s were permanent. Instead what happened is West Ukraine lacked middle classes to form the basis of bourgeois democracy or the nation state. Richer East Ukraine had them, but they were semi russified
4. As a result, there was a struggle against the high culture (Russian) to claim the economic basis of the east and make it work for a Ukrainian state (since it previously voted out the orange government)
5. His evidence for this is how in Kharkhov after 2014, higher education declined whereas it boomed in Belgorod, the only place in Russia to see such a growth besides Chechnya
6. As a result, we can see how if Russia finds a post Soviet path and Ukraine fails to, the east is pulled by eurasian integration whereas the west by European expansion. Thus the battle between EU and customs union.

If true, that would suggest the Ukraine crisis is partly rooted in how a battle over the middle class basis of the bourgeois state divided the working class by nationality


>Less territory 2 years later than at the first month of the war


Thanks for posting that. What's the original source?


"Middle class", lmao. It doesn't exist even in western countries, nevermind Russia. What's next, Russia has better "private-public partnerships"? I understand that you just post whatever you find and it doesn't mean that you espouse it completely, but this shit is just as utterly blind to the real situation in the country as western copes. Even if you refuse to have any Marxism in your analysis out of principle, you still have to admit that "the middle class" was largely westernized and against SMO. Hell, we had up to a million of these fuckers leave because they couldn't stop sucking western cock physically even when they went mask off. If you had to only use libshit to explain the situation, it would make much more sense to point to the massive role of the state as opposed to "the middle class", to the much stronger atomization as people described in the China thread earlier, to the fact that the state doesn't need "the middle" and can just do whatever it wants. In reality it is, of course, mostly the fact that Russian porkies didn't destroy the military-industrial complex completely in time and operate a functioning state, unlike Ukraine.
The family model claim is probably bullshit. We are the same country, family model and everything. We still have the same families stretched over the border, even if the Ukrainian state forces people to cut contact.


>Its family model was more conducive to liberal democracy and similar to the West
For the record I asked my Lviv Banderite colleague and he has no idea what Todd is talking about. He says if anything the reverse is true and Ukraine is more communitarian, which is what I would've suspected since Ukraine is less urbanized and industrialized. However, my Belarus color revolutionary colleague says Ukrainian culture is more free and enterprising than his. My other Belarusian colleague says this is all nonsense and they all have similar cultures, one isn't more individualist and egalitarian. That's not the reason for differences in democracy. They all say it's because of what I say - Russia is a multinational state (perhaps the last in Europe) and therefore it has what they call the empire mindset. Ukraine is a nation-state. Doesn't explain Belarus well, but then they'd probably say Belarus is still russified and kept its high culture in administration leftover from the Soviet period

This book

>you still have to admit that "the middle class" was largely westernized and against SMO. Hell, we had up to a million of these fuckers leave because they couldn't stop sucking western cock physically even when they went mask off. If you had to only use libshit to explain the situation, it would make much more sense to point to the massive role of the state as opposed to "the middle class", to the much stronger atomization as people described in the China thread earlier, to the fact that the state doesn't need "the middle" and can just do whatever it wants. In reality it is, of course, mostly the fact that Russian porkies didn't destroy the military-industrial complex completely in time and operate a functioning state, unlike Ukraine.
I don't really disagree with this and for the record my view is more the basic one that Ukraine has a weak national bourgeoisie as a small and backward nation historically. I think the middle class is relevant in marxism though, it is the origin of bourgeois values. dunno about this nuclear vs communitarian family stuff


You friends with many sus people, interbigbro.


I'm in eastern europe, these people are unavoidable. I just use them for research and keep my true opinions hidden


Progress in war is not counted in square kilometers but in the height of the piles of dead Ukrainians and the amount of wrecked western weapons.


Trying to educate myself a little, Ukrainian political parties are so confusing. They're all called shit like "The Good Things Platform - United Against Bad"


As all ways, you're posting from an alternative reality where nuclear weapons don't exist.


They're both shit and the fall of the soviet union has been a disaster for all of europe and asia


>They're all called shit like "The Good Things Platform - United Against Bad"


IIRC those parties are smaller parties merging together, and big names like that are a result of party names jumbling together


Basically people should stop listening to NATO propaganda about how they're escalating the shit out of things, they've got Russia scared, they're sending whatever they want regardless of whatever red lines Russia claims to have, that they're finally taking the leash off of Ukraine and giving them permission to attack Russia directly and even imminently going to flood Ukraine with NATO soldiers because they've got Russia on the backfoot that badly.

Because Ukraine says that NATO doesn't do shit for them, relative to the support that was actually promised in late 2021 and Russia largely concurs that crossing the red lines by NATO are escalatory but largely performative in the quantities provided and impact on the front.


"Revolution of dignity"


I never hear cucktin posters talk about zelensky, kuleba, and others + Western msm complain about faltering Western support. Tensions between Ukraine and the West are rising especially after the struggling peace summit, which may really about zelensky securing legitimacy after his term expired


Absolutely cringing when I first saw that


To be fair, that's because a lot cucktin posters are patriots who don't give a shit about what the west does. We already know that Ukraine lost.


File: 1717959649233-0.png (305.64 KB, 588x561, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1717959649233-1.png (700.18 KB, 730x881, ClipboardImage.png)

I heard they delivered first F16s. Was another red line crossed?


>Every credible western military and political figure: "Do not fuck around on Russia's borders in Ukraine, they will take action"
>West: Fucks around constantly, takes it to another level in 2014
>Russia: takes action
>West: "Nooo, le ebil Ruzzians. The world must go to war"
It's that simple.


But muh tertery, muh arrowz


Macron is calling elections. One down. If FDP calls it quits, Scholz will have to go too.


lol is this the new wedge gambit? desperate


Are there any good articles/etc giving an overview of the history of NATO expansion, Euromaidan, Ukrainian nationalism and the war for normies?


That's interesting because Sunak has also just called an election after likewise announcing some rather unpopular policies.

I think this is it, they're all ducking out so it's their successors that go down in history as the people of lost Ukraine and that actually matters to them as shitlibs, hence the accusations that Putin is driven by a desire to secure his legacy.


There was a book called "How the west brought war to Ukraine" or something like that which covers that kinda thing



Will CDU or LePen even remotely act against the war?


lol no, it's Merkel's party after all


A RN coalition will certainly cripple the country, so it is, dare I say, historically progressive.


Is LePen Anti Nato? Would be funny with all the things the US had to worry about right now this also came into their plate



>In the opening days of this year’s St Petersburg International Economic Forum, there were a number of signs that the Kremlin is taking a much tougher line in its relations with the West than hitherto in response to the war mongering rhetoric that has come out of Western Europe in the past week. France, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States had publicly stated that the weapons they have supplied to Ukraine can be used as the Kievan authorities see fit, meaning that attacks on the Russian heartland with long range missiles coming from their factories and programmed by their specialists are permitted.

>Meanwhile, in the run-up to the 80th anniversary of the Normandy landing commemorative activities in France yesterday, Emanuel Macron had done his very best to enrage the Kremlin by excluding Russians from the ceremonies and instead by warmly embracing the defender of the Bandera Nazi collaborators, President of Ukraine Zelensky. Macron compounded the insult to Russia by announcing that he will send Mirage 2005 all-purpose fighter jets to Ukraine before year’s end and that Ukrainian pilots are now in training in France.

>The new hard line from Russia was evident already at the start of the week when deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was allowed to speak his piece to the press, condemning the entry of West European powers into what is essentially co-belligerent status in the conflict. Ryabkov, you will remember, was the hard liner from the Ministry back in December 2021 demanding a voluntary roll back of NATO to its 1994 borders through negotiations over a draft document to that effect, lest Russia be compelled to push them back by force.

>Then the tough condemnation by Ryabkov was repeated to the press by his boss, Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov.

>At his meeting with representatives of the leading news agencies from 16 countries on Wednesday, Vladimir Putin sounded a tough note when he said that Russia’s response to a possible attack on critical Russian infrastructure in its heartland using the long-distance missiles supplied by the West would be met by an asymmetrical response, namely by Russia’s supplying similarly advanced weapons to armed forces that are in confrontation with the United States and are in a position to inflict significant damage on them if properly equipped. This sounded very much like a plan to arm the Houthis of Yemen, who could take good advantage of Russia’s hypersonic ship killing missiles to take revenge on the U.S. aircraft carrier force in their region. Or to give an assistance to Iraqi and Syrian militias who have been attacking U.S. military bases that are being maintained in their territories illegally.

>Of lesser importance, but still valuable as indication of which way the wind is blowing in Moscow, at that meeting with the press Vladimir Putin allowed himself to use some vulgar terms that are out of character. These came in his answer to the Reuters journalist who asked about Russia’s possibly using tactical nuclear weapons against the West. Aside from saying that Western talk about Russia’s supposed plans to attack them were as dense as the wood of the desk before him, he called this all ‘bullshit’ (бред or чушь собачья). We also know that in the last day or two for the first time ever Putin alluded to the United States as an ‘enemy’ rather than using the now conventional term ‘unfriendly country.’

>Then came the news yesterday, that Russia is dispatching the Admiral Gorshkov warship and task force to the Caribbean for exercises. The Gorshkov is not just any ship in the Russian fleet. It has been fitted with the latest Zircon nuclear capable hypersonic missiles. I imagine that from waters near Cuba its missiles could reach Washington, D.C. in five or ten minutes.

>This looks as though the Kremlin is deliberately setting up a Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0, but basing its missiles in ships operating freely in international waters as is their right.

>Apparently, the Biden administration has responded with feigned nonchalance to this development, saying that Russian exercises in the Caribbean are an innocent affair that take place periodically. Such is what Reuters reports.


>However, I very much doubt that Pentagon officials are in fact so laid back.

>All of the foregoing was the warm up. Today, at the Plenary Session of the St Petersburg Forum we saw that the hard line – soft line debates are still raging in the Kremlin. This was clear in the very odd decision to designate the political scientist Sergei Karaganov as moderator, pitching questions to Vladimir Putin and to the two honored guests on the podium with him, the presidents of Bolivia and Zimbabwe. Still more peculiar were the, shall we say, very unfriendly questions that Karaganov put to Putin, all of which hinted at a power struggle in Moscow over how best to respond to the West. This will be the subject of the segment below.


>In the past, before the start of the Special Military Operation, moderators for the Plenary Sessions of the St Petersburg Forum were uniformly chosen from among well-known American journalists. Usually these were people who knew little or nothing about Russia and were reading to Putin questions prepared for them by their editors. A perfect case in point was CNN anchor, pretty woman Megyn Kelly who held the position at the 2017 Forum. Her list of questions was repetitive to the point of hectoring. But she added glamor and could draw a Western audience. When relations already were becoming quite strained, the organizers of the Forum slotted in the Vesti journalist, anchor of the widely watched Saturday evening news Sergei Brilyov. Brilyov could be said to be a half-way compromise, because he was deeply embedded in the West, with his family residing in the U.K. while he was a dual national with British passport.

>As late as a day before the opening of this year’s Forum, there was speculation that the moderator would be Tucker Carlson. In one sense, his taking that role would ensure a vast audience for the proceedings. On the other hand, his very American persona would be in contradiction with the dominant anti-Western current that I now see.

>Instead, what we got was Sergei Karaganov, a political scientist whose name many in the West will find familiar because of the shocking call he made in June 2023 for Russia to put an end to Western provocations in and over Ukraine by striking one or another of its enemies in the West using tactical nuclear arms and forcing capitulation.

>Karaganov’s essay entitled “A Difficult but Necessary Decision” appeared in the most respected Russian foreign policy journal, Russia in Global Affairs”. See https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/a-difficult-but-necessary-decision/

>The article is worth re-reading because many of the points critical of Russian foreign and military policy that Karaganov made there, all indirectly deeply critical of Vladimir Putin’s softly-softly approach to managing international relations, were repeated face to face in his exchange with Putin on stage this afternoon. The key point he made is that Russia must quickly climb the escalatory ladder and win by its own ‘shock and awe’ behavior; that this, in the end, will save millions of lives by disrupting the present gradual ascent towards all-out nuclear war between the superpowers.

>Whereas Putin had allowed himself to be subjected to unfriendly questioning from Western journalists on stage at previous Forums, this is the first time I have seen him subjected to unfriendly questioning by a leading member of Russia’s own foreign policy establishment.

>The tension was visible in Putin’s face as he argued that so far Russia’s sovereignty and existence has not been threatened, so there is no reason to speak of using nuclear weapons in this conflict. Moreover, the Russian armed forces are daily pushing back the front line, gaining new territory and decimating the enemy’s manpower. Ukraine is losing 50,000 men a month and even the most drastic mobilization plans now being foisted on Kiev by Washington will, at best, only fill in the losses, not strengthen the Ukrainian positions for a counter-offensive.

>Karaganov also probed Putin’s mentioning to the world press Russia’s planned ‘asymmetrical’ response to any attacks on its territory. Would Russia be sending hypersonic battleship killing missiles to the ‘enemies of our enemies’ in the Middle East, he asked. Putin demurred, saying that nothing has yet been shipped, and that every future move would be taken only after thorough study.


>Putin’s speech to the Plenary Session about the 9 structural reforms that Russia will be implementing in the period to 2030 was itself an odd address for an audience consisting of not only Russians but of businessmen and government representatives from a great many foreign states. The speech was almost entirely about economic development of the country and improvement of living standards.

>Before getting to his questions about Russian foreign and military policy, Karaganov had put questions to Putin from the economic domain. However, his dry manner, utterly lacking in charm, could not have warmed the hearts of the audience. And even in this domain, the questions he put to Putin were unfriendly.

>Karaganov spoke as a true son of the alienated Russian intelligentsia when he asked his President whether in the ongoing recentralization of economic management there would not be reexamination of the whole privatization process of the 1990s which was directed in a criminal manner.

>Without wishing to plead the case of the oligarchs, Putin put the blame not on criminal intentions but on mistaken economic assumptions of those managing the economic transformation at the time, namely that they had assumed that whatever the business under examination may be it would be in better hands if privately owned than to remain as state property. As it turned out, said Putin, we have found that the state is entirely capable of managing businesses and its role is essential for industries requiring heavy capital investment.

>No doubt there were many Russians in the audience who enjoyed the sparring on the dais. But there surely were others who shared my concern that there is a battle going on in the Kremlin for the direction of Russian foreign and military policy.

>What we saw in the discussion on stage today was an indication of who will take the reins of power in Russia if Vladimir Vladimirovich is overthrown or assassinated, as the United States so fervently hopes: it will very likely be people thinking like Sergei Karaganov, like Vladimir Solovyov, like Dmitry Medvedev, who will have fewer qualms about taking risks, including dropping Russia’s 70 kiloton tactical nuclear weapons here and there to vanquish the West and their Ukraine proxy. By the way, each of these ‘tactical’ as opposed to strategic bombs is four times as powerful as those dropped by the Americans on Hiroshima and Nagasaki


File: 1717963130331.jpg (125.84 KB, 720x1115, Gorby.jpg)


Wish Gorbachev would be tortured in a gulag till death.


Papa John made this post.


Wish he would still be alive to see the death of the American empire. Together with Kissinger


>I think this is it, they're all ducking out so it's their successors that go down in history as the people of lost Ukraine and that actually matters to them as shitlibs
Hopefully these snap elections aren't being called because big things are coming and they want to have the appearance of a democratic mandate to justify these things.


He is dead anon, we had a thread where we got to spend all our pizza hut and gulag memes about him.


given merkel's foreign policy during her entire career i think she wasn't pro war despite what she is now saying in order to not become a full persona non grata putler appeaser yet liberals who used to praise her for austerity etc. have turned against her regardless.


>Wish Gorbachev would be tortured in a gulag till death
He changed his tune with the Ukraine crisis. Give him credit

>russia and ukraine are one people
>Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader, said the West was 'dragging' Russia into confrontation
>"No, the 'winners' decided to build a new empire. Hence the idea of NATO expansion," Gorbachev added.
>No head of the Kremlin can ignore such a thing [NATO in Ukraine]," he said, adding that the US was unfortunately starting to establish a "mega empire."


Let Putin refute the cuck charges by giving the Houthis tactical nukes.


>Let Putin refute the cuck charges by giving the Houthis tactical nukes
He's floating the possibility of giving missiles to people who want to strike US bases, meaning probably American positions in the middle east like Iraq or Syria


Comores and Madagascar and Cuba and Venezuela


Thoughts on the BadEmpanada video in the OP? I just watched it and thought it was well put together, but am surprised that it was endorsed by /ukr/ lol


I doubt it because they're both extremely unpopular and would likely be pulling out all the stops to cling to power if they didn't intentionally want to leave office.


She claims to be and I think even said she would have France leave NATO, but she is a far right retard and anyone with basic pattern-recognition skills (i.e. not Cucktin) would be able to tell you this means she will double down on NATO


What is /ukr/?


Jfc… Why do you faggots always have to pop into the thread to drop such fucking stupid posts like these and then run away back to isg, so fucking tiring. It's already been established that this is an attritional war.


Right-wingers are easily bought out and have no ounce of political integrity but to fight the manufactured culture war so I'm expecting her to change her mind on Nato a few weeks once she actually is in power.


>Right-wingers are easily bought out and have no ounce of political integrity but to fight the manufactured culture war so I'm expecting her to change her mind on Nato a few weeks once she actually is in power

I had a feeling the right outmaneuvering the left on opposing globalization after 2014 has this effect

>once in power the right does nothing

>meanwhile libs fearmonger that they will do something and get the left to give up opposition to international capital because democracy and Russia
>center nobody believes in left intact while rising left and right is frozen in tenuous balance


Ah, pull a Meloni and suddenly come to an understanding that all her promises were actually kinda difficult as soon as she entered office?


File: 1717966908496.jpg (50.52 KB, 800x450, 11124722-800x450.jpg)

Think the "model" right-wing party in Europe now is Meloni. Also makes me think a possible successor to Trump being Elise Stefanik.


She's pro NATO, she just has a proposal regarding France leaving the integrated command structure of the alliance like it was before Sarkozy, a lot of people don't understand the difference with leaving the alliance so they get the wrong idea which may be the goal of such proposal. I don't think she would even try to do that personally.


File: 1717967433870-0.jpg (154.69 KB, 704x458, Manpower.jpg)

File: 1717967433870-1.jpg (170.54 KB, 720x1107, NI1.jpg)

File: 1717967433870-2.jpg (345.6 KB, 720x2177, Ni2.jpg)

Possible underrated factor in Ukraine's manpower shortage, aside from millions fleeing to Europe anyway, is a link between south-east political abstention and military abstention. I did not know France and Ukraine had similar manpower pools, but Ukraine mobilized less than half France did

What's interesting is this book by Todd suggests 3 Ukraines. West, center, and south east. Only one is politically coherent, the west, and he gives data showing how its political elites are overrepresented. The center has the state or military however according to his data, and the southeast is basically unmoored and subjugated by the other two after 2014 in order to keep Ukraine integral and facilitate European expansion. The cause of the war therefore is this process reaching its natural conclusion of NATO backed 'deoccupation' threat to the poles of the southeast, crimea and donbass, as we saw in 2021


File: 1717968125556-0.png (174.96 KB, 1000x698, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1717968125556-1.png (77.66 KB, 300x168, ClipboardImage.png)

Very true, and you can see the division between these three nations in almost any map of Ukraine (political, language, etc)


From the new Doctorow article

>However, as I noted in my essay devoted to the proceedings of the Plenary Session, relations between Karaganov and Putin on the dais were very tense due to the moderator's needling, unfriendly questions about Putin's softly-softly approach to foreign affairs and refusal to undo the privatizations of the 1990s or to reinstate an official state ideology similar to that in Soviet days. Karaganov tells Zarubin that he is “a free spirit” but no man can be a free spirit when questioning his president in a hostile manner before the world audience and expecting to get away with it. Unless one has the backing of anti-Putin forces in Moscow, as I suggested yesterday may be the case.

Kinda based ngl


>Very true, and you can see the division between these three nations in almost any map of Ukraine (political, language, etc)

I guess there's two ways to view how decommunization revealed Ukraine's divisions

1. This is a leftover Soviet/Russian division of Ukraine that the rising European nation state is overcoming. Capitalism is clashing with the political, economic, and cultural ties of the industrialized and urbanized east and south that represents the stamp of SIOC (Soviet self integration)

2. Ukraine with SSR borders is a wildly incoherent basis for the nation state and the spread of the latter demands the same process of national delineation that Europe went through. See Poland and Germany

Either way you can clearly see that the Ukraine crisis is caused by Soviet dissolution and european expansion becoming based on further breaking it apart. It's just a question of whether you think that means Ukraine coming into being or breaking itself up as a multiethnic borderland and icon of Soviet nation building.

Also my favorite thing about these maps is transcarpathia. The Rusyns had their own version of what Ukraine is going through. After WW1, they divided between pro Russian and pro Ukrainian factions. This was also related to the catholic-orthodox division we also see in Ukraine, at least with Galicia. The USSR ukrainized them but as you can see, they remain an outlier in west Ukraine. Since Soviet collapse there's been something of a Rusyn cultural revival to my understanding. I actually remember reading in 2015 transcarpathia showed up on the SBU's radar due to fear Russia would stimulate separatism there, causing community leaders to reassure Kiev they just want language rights (they don't like Ukraine's language and education policy much either I believe).

I think Trotsky called Ukraine a bundle of contradictions. These maps show why, it's a nation spanning disparate regions with different history. It is at risk of the balkanization that is wished on Russia, probably because the 90s stayed permanent and decommunization was doubled down on


Is he demanding a return to off brand socialism


File: 1717969999155.jpg (74.27 KB, 591x639, 1717968465678097.jpg)

Our man isn't doing too well.


File: 1717970215919.mp4 (67.43 MB, 1280x720, 1048583658935.mp4)

>They want to be russian occupied again
Man I wish


>67 MB


Every day I wish more and more that this was real.


File: 1717970615712.png (405.8 KB, 598x516, ClipboardImage.png)

>Ramzan Kadyrov:

>Friends! Soldiers of the "AKHMAT-Chechnya" regiment of the RF Ministry of Defense under the command of dear BROTHER Aslambek Saliev, together with military personnel of other Russian units, carried out tactical actions and liberated another populated area from the enemy. This is the village of Ryzhevka, which is located on the border with the Kursk region.

>As a result of large-scale planned offensive actions, the Ukrainian side suffered significant losses and was forced to retreat. The coordinated and effective work of fighters from all units made it possible to achieve this result without any difficulties in just three days.

>I sincerely thank every soldier who participated in the assault and liberation of the village. I am convinced that the same ending awaits other territories that are temporarily under the yoke of Ukrainian-fascist and NATO formations.

>NOTE: It is from this village that constant shelling of the village of Tetkino in Russia was taking place. Russia is creating sanitary zone as anounced and ordered by President Putin.

We might have another front opened in Sumy


USSR aint coming back best accept it and move on. We live in a different world now and are building something new.


The formerly Russian-occupied parts of Germany no longer want to be American occupied.


Another fizzle coming soon, bros




The Chechens are have been acting as shock troops, no? Using Checheb spetznaz right off the bat seems like a strange move.


They probably spotted a weak spot and sent them in as a spearhead. If reports are true there was not much resistance.


The funny thing is that Budanov admitted a few months back when kharkov started that troops sent there were the last reserves.

If this is true then Ukraine now has to choose if they let Russians take those areas without much of a fight or cannibalize other fronts. In other words, something will have to give. Ukrainians can maybe influence where that might happen, Kiev and Zelensky will not be too happy about it either way.


Is Russia actually using "Fronts" in the proper sense for organisation (what the Red Army did in the Great Patriotic War with the Karelian Front, Leningrad Front etc) or is just a term?


Yeah and even with the insane numerical advantage, the Ukrainians have made almost no progress on the Kharkov front, failing to capture even half of Wolfshank


They did put up enough of a fight to claim that it was stalling.



That still seems pretty reckless, since a repeated pattern in this war has been for either side to abandon a position when it looks like it's about to be taken, then shell it. A spetznaz unit especially seems like a really juicy target. Tweeting about it seems even more provocative. Even with shell famine, if you know such a valuable unit is in a specific location, I would think you'd want to throw whatever you have at it, particularly given Ukraine's training and manpower problems.

But maybe that's the point. You give the ukies a big juicy target and see what they hit it with, if anything, exposing what assets they might have in the area, and try and bait them into devoting serious material to try and dislodge them. If none is forthcoming, then it's time to go all in I suppose.


File: 1717976214424.png (156.71 KB, 498x205, ClipboardImage.png)



>You give the ukies a big juicy target and see what they hit it with, if anything, exposing what assets they might have in the area
The job of the spetznaz is probably really to scout anyways. It's a relatively small and light force trained to probe the line, and can make contact with the enemy but will avoid sticking around in a big fight. There's also a military concept called (in the U.S.) called "reconnaissance by fire" where you shoot at possible enemy positions to get them to shoot back (so you know where they are).


>Ukraine has trillions of dollars worth of critical minerals in their country.

>Vladimir Putin cannot be allowed to access that money and those resources because he will share it with China.



biden is a more far right violent anti-communist putin is the lesser evil russia beating nato is harm reduction


USSR always had no first strike policy because their position was that western workers were held hostage by gangster monopolies


File: 1717978244503.png (226.27 KB, 469x358, ClipboardImage.png)

This fucking guy man.

>If we help Ukraine now, they can become the best business partner we ever dreamed of

>that 10-12 trillion dollars of critical mineral assets could be used Ukraine and The West not given to Putin and China.
>Let's help them win a war we can't afford to lose, let's find a solution to this war.
>they're sitting on a GOLD MINE


rediscovering lenin's path to socialism


File: 1717978372112.png (1019.03 KB, 1879x1569, ClipboardImage.png)

Did Macron and Scholz get very cocky?


I have friends in ESISC and word on the streets is Putin hacked this election big time.


They will realize that that the systems and trappings they have built and the "friends" they keep have made that very much impossible. They are trying to change the system to save the system, but the system itself won't let em.


My libtard friends have been sharing shit about how putler has been giving the far right money to "push Russian talking points/misinformation/propaganda." Apparently destroying European democracy can be bought for as little as a million euros a month.


File: 1717979417737.png (457.92 KB, 700x416, ClipboardImage.png)

They're falling off their game. In 2016 they stole the election with $150k in facebook ads in a $6 billion dollar election.

>Facebook accounts with apparent Russian ties purchased about $150,000 in political ads aimed at American voters during key periods of the 2016 presidential campaign, according to a new analysis released Wednesday by the social networking company.



How do these idiots square the fact that Russia apparently bought the elections and brainwashed people in the West for so little money? Maybe there really is just organic support for Trump and Putin in the Garden that doesn't like being told what they should support? Nooo, it's democracy that's bad if there's a side that goes against what I like.


File: 1717982433672.png (124.09 KB, 308x308, 1636647964121.png)

Considering how accurate the Simpsons have been in the past…

>I wonder if old dudes on the photos ever think about how the current war wouldn't have happened if USSR was still around
No need to wonder, they do think that and expressed it many times, same as with Georgia in 2008 and Chechnya even earlier than that.

>Never ask a Brazilian volunteer what his great-grandfather was doing during WWII.
Why? He'd be proud to tell you of whatever atrocities his aryan GD did.


That guy was also very pro Ukraine, right? Who else?


Post-Putin Russia will be full of surprises. The red flag not the vlasov flag will celebrate the 100th anniversary of victory day just watch and let the Simpson's cook


To be fair, inflation has been crazy.


>Why? He'd be proud to tell you of whatever atrocities his aryan GD did.
What did the brazilians do, i canto find It on the internet.


Brazil like, fought in the side of the allies in ww2


File: 1717985028648.jpg (63.65 KB, 1200x672, 1200-879956178.jpg)

They think that the ads influenced enough people in key areas or something. It's really ridiculous and I try not to get into it with my lib friends because honestly, there isn't really any good reason for it. It's just a narrative keystone that can't be removed at this point because without it so much of their liberal narrative just collapses.

Like at this point so much further propaganda and narrative has been built onto it that trying to disentangle it or, god forbid, dismantle it, is a Herculean task. It's like a spider's web where structurally each thread supports, and even REQUIRES the other. You can't remove one piece without destroying the whole thing, and it's all wrapped up with their ego too as liberals, "the good guys."

From the bourgeois perspective, with reality going more and more against them, they're increasingly turning to narrative control, and at the moment the chief bogeyman is Putin. He's the mastermind behind but only Trump, but virtually every other "evil" in the world (or at least the US and Europe). Not only does he control the president, but now he's controlling the Republicans in Congress too (as clearly evidenced by them withholding their votes to supply Ukraine). If he doesn't control them directly, they're at least his followers because they admire him and his Christian conservativism, and they want to make the United States into Russia.

It's all a bunch of fantasy nonsense where Putin is somehow this supreme Bond villain that is at one hand powerful and competent enough to control all of these moving parts from the shadows, but somehow also so incompetent that he thinks that he could conquer Ukraine with only 100,000 men, and not only that but exterminate all the Ukrainians, and then go on to conquer Europe, in spite of just being in charge of a gas station with nukes.

It's so tiresome. There's no reasoning with them because they're completely disconnected from reality. Facts, logic, or just basic reasoning don't matter, because the narrative has to be maintained at all costs. They're totally invested in the idea that they're the good guys, the adults in the room, and what they're doing is right. I don't think even the prospect of nuclear war is as scary to them as the thought that that might in fact not be true.


The implication is that his grandpa fled to South America after the war to escape prosecution.


Good morning, I hate NATO


It's a way to "externalize internal contradictions." The world is not that complicated. Throughout history there's always a primary problem for every major empire: where is my money. The U.S. has gained a lot through trade, but the problem is the distribution of the resources. That's true in other empires in history: they collect resources but the majority doesn't benefit from it, but the prominent shareholders come up with hundreds of excuses as to why: "this is what the gods/Allah/the Constitution/Founding Fathers/Jesus say…" and if you disagree "that's communist." They also propose another solution which is "I'm going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" or "don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" or waging a crusade/jihad or saying "Chi-nah!" or "RUSSIA" or blaming the Jews.

But that's easier said than done. When the empire is expanding, it's easy to come up with excuses. But when it's not, or the costs of expansion exceed the benefits, the scapegoat tactic no longer works which leads to the involution of the empire in which the interest groups within fight over religion, ethnicity, race, party politics… to gain resources instead of uniting to transfer the internal contradictions to the outside world like they did before during expansion. Hence, the empire divides and falls. So, the real problem here is really the internal distribution of gains between Americans.

Russia isn't responsible for any of that.

Thing is though, there are shady people in Russia who I think believe would benefit if Americans fight each other instead of uniting against Russia. Therefore, I'm pretty certain the Russian government has sought opportunities to exploit those internal contradictions within American society. The preferred targets for exploitation are black nationalist/separatists like the Black Hammer cult (now destroyed), white nationalist and neo-Nazi accelerationists (one group called "The Base" was run by an American expat in Russia before the FBI destroyed it), and conservative isolationists like Tucker Carlson who was invited by the Russian government to interview Vladimir Putin. That interview was more open, but the fringe groups are more likely cultivated by various political "entrepreneurs" like Alexander Ionov of the "Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia" (who actually paid these motherfuckers to have protests) and Alexander Dugin (who encourages exactly this in the "Foundations of Geopolitics") … who doesn't work for the Russian government, exactly, but he's not prevented from doing this, because it's overall in the state's interest, or not *against* its interests, and that is a way to keep this stuff plausibly deniable.

It's not a big mystery. The liberals will also, obviously, use this as evidence that the Crazy Ivans "behind it all." But unlike the liberals, I don't think it's all that effective or counts for much. The really fringe groups are really not capable of doing anything. My sense is that there are people in Russia who see anti-systemic fringe groups and delude themselves into thinking this is something important, because they want to believe that, which is similar to liberals in Western countries who think there's some big groundswell of opposition to Putin.


Long story short plenty of South Americans have Nazi ancestors or Nazi-sympathizing ancestors, hence why so many Nazis fled there (or rather were sent there by the CIA) after WW-2


More Nazis and collaborators went to North America. It's just that the likelihood of someone from South America volunteering to fight for Ukraine having fascist ancestors is extremely high.


Any happenings so far? Heard that the Sumy front might be a thing soon. Somehow Ukraine scored a drone hit on an Su-57 parked uncovered somewhere in Russia. Gotta say, it's really stupid how Russia keeps making these unforced mistakes that they should have prepared for in advance already.


File: 1717995857429.png (538.73 KB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)



yes. i agree, which is why i don't support NATO.

none of this changes the fact that putin is a violent anti-communist and our task as revolutionaries must be to bring the bandits and warlords who looted the soviet union to justice.


>putin is a violent anti-communist
Source? You come to this board and say something like that, you are looking for a debate or something.


>our task as revolutionaries must be to bring the bandits and warlords who looted the soviet union to justice
Slow down with the LARP lmao


>Ukraine scored a drone hit on an Su-57


Investigating further this is bait. The Russians reported on this, it was a satellite photo of an impact near an Su-57 resulting in shrapnel scratching the aircraft with minor damage.


the summer already fizzled and they only captured like 2 tiny villages


Okay everyone, shut it down. Fizzle has been called. I'll see you all in /balt/


Nothing ever happens


tbh, this is /ukr/ general, we don't NEED to talk everyday about war and stuff, we can talk about other stuff too, that is related to Russia/Ukraine, of course.


Nah, I like this dynamic of anti-NATO anons discussing the war and the politics surrounding it with the occasional doomer or ultra dropping in to claim the war for Russia is stalling or fizzling and then going back to /isg/ immediately. I think they really add something to the thread.


>It's a way to "externalize internal contradictions
I find this process fascinating. Given that global capitalism encompasses the world and liberalism is hegemonic, it was a way i predicted a crisis of imperialism. The bourgeois revolution was complete, we created a new form of empire and heritable wealth, and we recycle historical enemies as democracy declines under this system

I've looked at numerous books on populism after 2017 and they all mention class inequality and the urban countryside divide. Misinformation and racism show up, but it's never just liberal openness being manipulated or liberal cultural values being rejected. There's also a recognition that liberal capitalism is losing its dynamism and instead turned calcified


>Floating the possibility
As always, Cucktin would rather imagine hypothetical scenarios in which he displays strength against NATO rather than actually make those dreams a reality


>NATO said to Russia "do not invade Ukraine"
>Putin did it anyway
>NATO immediately and publicly burns billions of its own dollars in retaliation
>That failed to force the Russian military to return home
You've just got propaganda on the brain


i mean, putin definitely won this match in that his army was able to take a good chunk of ukraine and that is definitely indicative of the decline of USA hegemony, but it's also undeniable that NATO aid however unfit for purpose, did at least manage to force a stalemate. russia is "advancing" at a rate of an village a day. rate at which they will obviously not capture the rest of ukraine before the USA can shift it's focus fully to ukraine. putin's actually in a tough spot rn


I'd just compare this situation to Qing China. Russia is doing quite well for taking on the world's powers.


NATO's goal here was to threaten Russia into never moving westward, then it was to force Russia to abandon all of their gains in Ukraine and now it's reduced to just ensuring that Russia "only" advances one village a day.

Like I've said, you've got NATO propaganda on the brain, they've allowed themselves the right to be continually rewriting the goals for themselves and for Russia according to whatever makes them seem most like they're winning.


Are you saying that Qing China's is imperialist? Imperialist in Africa? Are you a white dude who does not know arabic? Are you a imperialist china fascist in Africa?


Anon Qing China definitely did not fight the Western powers effectively


That was the point. Russia is doing well in comparison.


File: 1718011074135.png (532.77 KB, 1082x822, 2024-06-10 111454.png)

One village left before the Potrovsk-Konstantyynovka highway is cut, another glorious Syryskyy tactical retreat soon?


File: 1718012651476.png (826.58 KB, 750x789, 19857305730526.png)

Russia is fucked


>financially irrational
Its joever


File: 1718015780427.jpg (155.13 KB, 1280x801, IMG_20240610_102152_985.jpg)


Nobody thought Qing China was the 2nd greatest military on Earth at the time that they went to war against the British Empire.


File: 1718017413417.png (317.26 KB, 956x386, 2 genders.png)

We're seeing the opposite happening so far. More and more fronts are opening against the west. They are being pushed back in Palestine, Yemen, Africa. There is no indication that this will stop, which is why the west is so desperate and willing to risk nuclear war. They're already done, the question is whether they will go through with the bigger samson option.


>They are being pushed back

<Yemen: They set up a different shipping route and went around instead. Tactical victory for Houthis but strategic stalemate for NATO since the route is not life threatening and they have alternatives.

<Palestine: Israel genociding Palestinians so hard that all people can do is launch a lawsuit to protest. Inevitable tactical and strategic victory for Israel. They only lose in the court of world opinion which they weren't winning decades ago anyways.

<Ukraine: Russia possesses less territory now than at the start of the war. Currently stalemate leading to possible NATO victory and re-conquest of Ukraine depending on whether NATO decides to throw their forces in.

None of these fronts look good besides Yemen which was only a minor blip.


Whoops meant for >>1881566


Honestly no one thought of that about Russia either, it has just become a popular idea since the start of the SMO to flip the narrative on NATO failing to push Russia out of Ukraine. Otherwise the narrative is that NATO are failing to push out a military that was commonly thought of as solely consisting of corrupt officers and demoralised conscripts operating 40 year old weapons.


Hezbollah has already depopulated northern settlements, retard. Zionists are physically being pushed out of Palestinian land. Ukrainian military is being ground up, even MSM admit it. Anti-air has been largely wrecked. Ukrainian casualties were at ~500 a day a few months ago, now they don't get below 1000.


>Needing to send NATO troops to break a "stalemate" that is costing Ukraine hugely to up hold looks good for NATO
>Russia started off with Crimea and DPR/LPR territories and now has slightly more than that despite so many Ukrainian counter-offensyivs and "decisive" battles
You shouldn't have that name you've given yourself lmao


Already answered your third point but you refuse to read replies.


>Nobody thought Qing China was the 2nd greatest military on Earth at the time that they went to war against the British Empire.

I still don't know where that idea comes from and appears to be part of that Western discourse where Russia is both simultaneous and weak. The point seems to be arguing that Russia is failing to meet goals that the West set, such as occupying all of Ukraine. NATO members collectively account for a supermajority of world military spending and it was assumed that unlike the Cold War, Russia is far more inferior to the alliance.

The confrontation with Iran, Russia, and China isn't producing the results the West expected. Israel going for a greater Israel one state solution is undermining its place in the world and relationship to the West while Iran and Hezbollah proved they can strike Israel without much pushback so far. Israel's campaign in Gaza is a genocidal abyss going nowhere and probably impossible to complete. Ukraine is just a disaster, Russia is consolidating its place in the world while Ukraine is committed to a slow motion loss the West cannot alleviate without intervention that complicates its overextension. China divides the US and Europe, divides Taiwan, and relies on island chain containment that isn't tenable as the world economically rebalances.


Fact Check Check
><Ukraine: Russia possesses less territory now than at the start of the war.
Irrelevant. The war was not about possessing territory, and much of that territory was never intended to be kept. The initial incursion was intended to force a political settlement on terms acceptable to Russia, not to keep all the territory initially occupied. Then the West and Ukraine decided to go full war instead of accept Russia's terms, so from there it became a war of attrition, which Russia is winning and has been for some time now.
><Currently stalemate
it's not currently a stalemate. One side is advancing, the other retreating. One side has growing manpower deficiencies, the other has increasing numbers. One side is no longer able to keep the lights on. One side is growing weaker each day, the other stronger. That's not a stalemate. It's a trajectory where one side loses, even if the lines aren't moving quickly right now.
>leading to possible NATO victory and re-conquest of Ukraine depending on whether NATO decides to throw their forces in.
NATO throwing in their forces will not lead to a NATO victory. At best it will lead to a stalemate, and at worst a defeat or nuclear war.


<Yemen: They set up a different shipping route and went around instead.
At huge increase in costs and blow to the prestige of Western naval capability.

<They only lose in the court of world opinion which they weren't winning decades ago anyways.

The latest Gaza war has been an absolute disaster politically for the Zionist occupation, a fact which their own lobbying groups admit. It actually seems possible that Israel will go the way of its former allies Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa in the near future.

<Russia possesses less territory now than at the start of the war.

Lmao. The absolute cope. The start of the war was 24 February 2022 and Russia absolutely controls more territory now. Shortening lines after the shift to an attrition strategy was absolutely the correct strategy even according to Western think tanks.


It will unironically get to the point where NATO claims victory because while Biden has fallen down stairs, Putin had fallen down stairs AND shat himself on the way down (according to anonymous sources), thus Putin's legacy was still ruined and that's what the Ukraine war was all about!


there are now EU countries recognizing palestine lmao


File: 1718024003280.png (123.86 KB, 750x819, ClipboardImage.png)

>They set up a different shipping route and went around instead.
what a hilarious and very stupid cope. The west got kicked out of one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. The whole point of the suez canal is to avoid "just going around instead". >>1881570


Nothing a few genocidal sanctions coudn't fix!


Yeah getting pushed back to thevfucking 18th century is a “stalemate” lmao


File: 1718024869987.jpg (34.1 KB, 453x574, p.jpg)


Anyone who thinks NATO can “put their full force in” and win in Ukraine is a fucking retard. NATO will never conscript people for Ukraine, their societies would fall apart. Their entire standing armies combined would be depleted after one year of fighting of Ukraine War intensity. Their Air Forces could make a difference initially, but in (dare I say it) two weeks, their Air Forces would be so depleted that it would take multiple decades for them to recover with their pathetic deindustrialized societies. NATO has given everything it can and still failed against a retarded child wearing his fathers army uniform


File: 1718025220075.jpeg (830.1 KB, 1179x1308, IMG_1421.jpeg)

SMO to Nazify Mexico coming soon?




Damn. Man of the people!


File: 1718025563615.jpg (665.63 KB, 1240x1506, 13142-3983007969.jpg)

Yes…ha ha ha…YES


I see Cuba is a potential missile depot as well? Cuban Missile Crisis Act 2 the revenge?


Based story in case anyone missed it. Mobiks stole a fascist army truck and headed straight for Hungary where they’ve been given safe haven


well the us government has been taking a fascist immigration stance on the southern border and bloomberg released a documentary (haven't watched it) about how mexico is le authoritarian now and we need to deploy a few democracy troops to save the vvest. i'm not saying amerikkka is planning to invade but they're definitely pissed that mexico is breaking with neoliberal hegemony and are trying to drum up the same kind of racism as with the chinese


Cucktin would never.
I don't believe it until I see it.


Did they really?
Mexico is going back to their Estrada doctrine, and at least AMLO and evidently Sheinbaum is aware that they have to maintain a relatively low profile on the international stage to advance the national project.

Meanwhile, the US is proposing to invade Mexico. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/03/us/politics/trump-mexico-cartels-republican.html
Doubtful they will do it, but if they do, it will seriously escalate the world war.


File: 1718026606472.png (228.96 KB, 580x820, holy based.png)

>More importantly, Russia's success with a state model afforded by its more communitarian culture allowed it to build a middle class, overcome oligarchic despotism, and reconcile that middle class with an alternative to liberalism

The "middle class" (by which you inevitably mean petite bourgeoisie) is absolute cancer and a big reason for why capitalist states are so reactionary. The middle stratum is objectively the most pro-Western and pro-capitalist in their psychological outlook. Which is why you saw a huge chunk of the Russian middle class immediately flee to Georgia as soon as the war started because they didn't want to fight for Russia.

Yet again Belarus and Lukashenko are light years ahead of Russia in cultural superiority and systemic analysis.

Exterminate the petite bourgeoisie and capitalism disappears.


File: 1718027079971.jpg (111.4 KB, 867x681, 25754 - SoyBooru.jpg)

ideology surpasses all chvddie


File: 1718028211771-0.mp4 (2.11 MB, 720x1280, 12312gggggg.mp4)


>Exterminate the petite bourgeoisie and capitalism disappears.
Then you're left with a managerial bourgeoisie who is even more petty and cunty when they have no personal gain from it, only symbols made from the letting of workers' blood.
Disgorge and neutralize "leader-follower" classism before doing anything, so that leadership classes can't reform.


putin has one billion clones


How can I access RT when the EU has blocked it? I want to watch live too


Set your DNS servers to https://quad9.net/
They have detailed tutorials on how to accomplish that.


it could be you. it could be me. everyone could be putler.


File: 1718033125911.jpg (2.71 MB, 3024x4032, PXL_20240610_150940653.jpg)


global superpower azerbaijan, checks out


Seriously wtf did Azerbaijan do


They probably are just retarded yuros who confused Azerbaijan and Iran


I followed instructions and doesn't work.
Is there any other way?
I'm not tech savvy and hate computers


I don't disagree at all. I of course think cannibalizing the middle to create a concentrated top to be expropriated by a mass-based bottom is the future.


They have livestreams on Rumble and Odysee


they supported New Caledonia independence. this was because marcon was supporting Armenia


Thankfully, squeezing the petite bourgeois out of owning capital and property is the plan for the bourgeoisie as well lmao


Fuck this gay Earth


File: 1718036525627.jpg (315.84 KB, 820x1454, the many putins.jpg)


The Russian Endgame in Ukraine and European Resistance to “Right Wing” Advances: A Thought Experiment



File: 1718036688282.png (213.69 KB, 751x414, Ideal Infirm Infantry.png)

You've heard of training conscripts at the front creating apprentices of war, but now get ready for early onset arthritis creating the bravest soldiers.


File: 1718036788531.png (7.22 MB, 3200x1801, ClipboardImage.png)

>Exterminate the petite bourgeoisie and capitalism disappears.

Exterminate petit bourgeois and the threat of fascism disappears, since they provide the ideological base of fascism (along with veterans in imperialist countries, and certain strata of lumpen). But you do not get rid of capitalism. Capitalism can only be gotten rid of by the revolutionary victory of the proletariat, the the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship, and the establishment of socialism.


holy cope


If you don’t have a dictatorship of the proletariat, how do you get rid of the petit bourgeoisie you tard? Only the higher capitalists can do that under capitalism, and that won’t do away with fascism. Fascism is when those two stop fighting so they can team up against socialism.


Anyone who cheerleads this war on should be sent to fight in it



Prick was a British officer so of course his instinct is to order men to charge at the machine guns and then canonise them as lions once the inevitable happens. Literally anything he says or genuinely thinks about war naturally precludes his own participation.



The Suez canal is not even important. Right?


File: 1718038577588.png (1.67 MB, 1552x2131, ClipboardImage.png)


Unique IPs: 138

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]