/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2812230
>is there any org that have my precise flavor of incoherent stupidity?
no

it's less about being pro russia and more about recognizing that the entire SMO is a result of eastward NATO expansion, that bourgeois ukraine and bourgeois russia, being weaker bourgeois nations, and victims of the US-backed shock doctrine in the 1990s, have been systematically destabilized and pit against one another for the benefit for the stronger imperialists in NATO, that the false promises made by NATO to not expand "one inch eastward" in 1991 has been broken 14 times, and that the conflict should not be seen as a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but between NATO and non-NATO

That's a silly reason not to join. You're never going to find a party you agree with on every issue, and if that's a foreign policy issue it's especially silly. You should be focused on class struggle in your own country, and even your foreign policy stances should be motivated by that more than anything else.

>>2812230
>they don’t flat out support Russia but excuse the annexation of Crimea and the SMO.
Seems pretty measured to me, also these >>2812262 >>2812269

>>2812230
What foreign policy would you want to see towards Russia? Cause I dont particular care for Russia either. I hate the right wing propaganda the fund here, I think their government is reactionary but the current state of Russia is wholly due to U.S/NATOs sabotage and broken promises. So i would like to see reconciliation and policy that keeps them at arms length without being hostile.

>>2812262
>>2812269
>>2812282
>>2812293

I understand that class struggle is the focus and foreign policy isn’t everything but I can’t advocate for an organization that doesn’t criticize or even defends imperialism.

Even if NATO was designed specifically to bait Russia into invading Ukraine that does not excuse anything! They are killing and displacing innocent people on ethnic and nationalist grounds. Russia isn’t an innocent little country, they were a member of the G8, they chose to use their power and resources to attack not just a country but also the people in it. Maybe if they didn’t occupy territories or strike civilian infrastructure I would be more sympathetic but they have dropped the “demilitarization” and “denazification” act and they are now negotiating on terms of taking their occupied oblasts.

Maybe I am nitpicking but I believe in Lenin’s words of nations having a right to self determination and those who support Russia on any basis being it hatred for NATO or belief in the Kremlins propaganda are not up to my standard in terms of ideology or intelligence.

>>2812305
Even leaving aside the debate around definitions of imperialism and whether Russia fits them, your primary focus in a conflict such as Ukraine should be revolutionary defeatism. The goal of the US and Europe in Ukraine is to reduce that country to a neo-colony, use it as a meatshield against Russia, and ultimately to subdue and exploit Russia itself. Even if you don't consider Russia an "innocent country" this is beside the point. You cannot support the current Western war effort without supporting the imperialist aims of the Western ruling class in practice. Your good intentions don't matter, what matters is the imperialist intentions of the people actually prosecuting the war. As such, it is a reactionary war waged for reactionary ends. As always we must listen to Lenin on this, who says that during a reactionary war a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its own government. This means that your focus should be on exposing the imperialist character of your government, the imperialist goals behind the war in Ukraine, and show how this war is ultimately a war against the working class. This is literally the only productive thing you can do in this situation, since joining the hate and seething against Russia only strengthens the reactionary war effort. If you'd like to know more, I'd recommend Lenin's "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism".
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

>>2812380
>NOOOOO YOU CANNOT ALLY YOURSELF WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
That's correct actually, since the US had agreed not to allow those countries into NATO, and also repeatedly rebuffed Russian inquiries about joining. NATO is explicitly designed as a tool of US influence, to "keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down." Meanwhile, while this expansion was going on, the US attacked numerous countries including Panama, Libya, Iraq (twice), Syria, Serbia, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen. So consider the Russian perspective. They have an agreement to prevent the expansion of NATO east of Germany, and the Americans immediately begin violating this agreement while also rejecting your requests for closer cooperation or even membership. While this is happening, instead of using the end of the Cold War to demilitarize and retire the use if military force as a tool of diplomacy, they take advantage if the power vacuum go become even more aggressive and basically destroy any country they want. How are the Russians supposed to feel in this situation? How are they to regard the eastward creep of US troops, missiles, and intelligence assets as anything other than a threat? Their reaction was predictable, people were saying they would react this way since the 90s. Even liberal darling Gorbachev said that ant Russian leader, regardless of political orientation, would have reacted in the same way.

>>2812230
>Is there an American socialist org that supports China/DPRK but not Russia?
Probably the CPUSA unironically. But their position on the Ukraine war is just no war in general. No Russian invasion, no NATO, etc.

>>2812414
Notice how you completely ignore every point I made and just make vague assertions and accusations stretching back centuries. The following are indisputable facts:

1. The US promised not to expand NATO beyond Germany
   
2. The US violated this agreement
   
3. The US took advantage of the post-Cold War power vaccum to attack numerous countries and destroy any government that opposed them
   
4. The US rebuffed Russian efforts for closer integration with NATO
   

There is not a single state in the entire world that would not feel threatened by these actions.

>>2812511
>he us and russia dont get to decide the foreign policy of sovereing states
No, but the US decides who is admitted to NATO. They promised not to admit any of the former Warsaw Pact states and then proceeded to do so.
>The same thing russia is doing in ukraine?
No, since the US attacked tiny, dirt poor countries on the other side of the world which could never have posed a conceivable threat to them. Russia attacked a country on their border which was poised to join a hostile military alliance led by the most aggressive and militarized country in the world.
>How does this justify anything russia has done?
I'm not saying it was, however it's obvious that Russia was being reactive. They didn't just attack Ukraine out of the blue the way the US did to Iraq.
>neithet considered eachother an adversary it was russia under putin that broke all of that
Not until George Bush announced his intention to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Once again Russia was being reactive.
>Yeah its quite a threatening feeling knowing you wont be able to freely invade your neighbors anymores
It's threatening to have the most aggressive empire in the world establish an outpost on your border and vassalize your neighbours.

>>2812545
So you just let yourself get encircled, have nukes put at your border not even 10 minutes of your own capital etc ? You just take it like a good boy because your neighbors are """sovereign""" (have a litteral western puppet government)?
I'm more of a "Russia should've supported the ukrainian government military against Maidan in the first place" guy but come on bro

>>2812545
You're reversing the order of cause and effect. Russia didn't display any aggressive intention to any of these countries before they began falling into NATO's orbit.

> but excuse the annexation of Crimea and the SMO.

So you are looking for a leftist org that is to the right of Obama on foreign policy? Yeah, good luck with that.

>>2812628
>Yeah because they were ruled by russias puppets or heavily aligned with them
As opposed to the US, which would never meddle in the politics of weaker countries, and certainly had nothing to do with Ukraine's pivot to the West.

>>2812628
>because they were ruled by russias puppets or heavily aligned with them
lmao nope

>look at how agressive russia got when it came to losing influence and the capability of enacting imperalism on them
they only "got aggressive" when it was clear nato was crossing all red lines and preparing their eventual destruction

>Joining nato gives a permanent guarantee of these countries sovereignenty
<loosing your sovereignty to the US empire is actually a guarantee of your sovereignty

>russia cant abide with
they were abiding fine for a long time, it really took a lot for them to wake up to the fact they cant be friend with the US, because the US really want to loot them

>do posses territorial and imperialistic ambitions on them
Im sure thats why instead of invading when ukraine was weak and divided, they waited for years doing diplomatic solutions while nato was reinforcing it

>>2812640
Because you can't separate Russian actions from the American meddling to which it was a reaction.

>>2812785
>They cant fathom why all russias neighbors hate them are scared of them
Any fear of Russia in the 90s would have been totally and wholly irrational. The country was a total mess and had to fight two wars (one of which it lost) just to maintain control of its own territory and borders in Chechnya. Its government was bought and paid for by Western interests, its economy was in total shambles, and it displayed no aggressive action against its neighbours whatsoever. Russian aggression during this period wasn't just nonexistent, it was physically impossible. The same couldn't be said for the US at the time, which bombed and/or invaded four countries from 1990-1999 (Panama, Iraq, Serbia, Somalia), none of which could ever conceivably have posed a threat. Yet somehow, the first wave of NATO expansion began during this same time, against the advice of many in Western intelligence and foreign policy circles who predicted this exact reaction from Russia. Citing aggression as a justification for this makes no sense, because not only was there no such aggression from Russia, but the alliance itself is headed by the most aggressive country in the world. Subsequent Russian action in Georgia and Ukraine can't be cited to retroactively justify NATO expansion unless you literally don't understand the concept of cause and effect.

>>2812896
>Georgia
>Russian aggression
LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL
GEORGIA FIRED THE FIRST SHOT
GEORGIA INVITED THE RUSSIAN PEACEKEEPERS AND SHOT AT THEM THINKING NATO WOULD HAVE THEIR BACK
LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL
RUSSIA JUSTLY RESPONDED TO GETTING SHOT AT BY GEORGIAN TROOPS DESPITE BEING INVITED THERE BY GEORGIA IN THE FIRST PLACE
LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL

>>2812605
ACP

>>2812230
>Is there an American socialist org that supports China/DPRK but not Russia
China and DPRK support the SMO lol

>>2812947
not a fan of ACP but they are not to the right of obama on foreign policy lol

>>2812948
Do people who support the DPRK also support fascist Peru?

>>2812945
Comrade I suspect that you have seen many trees but never a forest.

>>2812269
foreign policy is the most important thing retard, do you think capitalism doesn't operate globally?

>>2813072
>Yeah russia holds territorial and imperialistic ambitions on its neighbors which is why russia reacts so agressively to them joining nato
They react aggressively to them joining NATO because NATO is a tool of the most aggressive empire in the world, which spent the last 30 years destroying every government it didn't like with complete impunity, while making it clear that Russia was not welcome in its club.

>>2813146
>There is no nato agression or planned nato agression against russia
And the Russians are just supposed to take their word on that? How many governments has the US toppled since the Cold War? How many countries have they attacked? The Russian Federation has fought five wars in its entire existence, two of which were in their own territory and one of which was at the invitation of an allied government. Right before the war with Ukraine broke out, the US was fighting six wars simultaneously, all of them far from their own shores. Russia's reaction is entirely predictable and rational, it would be like getting nervous when a violent drug cartel starts recruiting members in your neighbourhood. Nobody would consider you unreasonable for that, but when Russia feels threatened by the bloodsoaked American empire creeping closer and closer to their borders, suddenly "unprovoked aggression."

This is like asking that you are looking for a leftist org that opposed the withdrawal from Afghanistan. lol

>>2813154
>You could say the same for russias neighbors russia has been a constant agressor and threat to them for the past 300 years
So has Germany and yet these countries had no qualms about cozying up to them. The Germans tried to exterminate the entire Polish nation less than a century ago, but yeah sure let's make an alliance with them against the people who stopped them and saved the Polish people from genocide. Almost like it has nothing to do with historical grievances and everything to do with their being compradors aligned with US imperialism through economic interests. That's not even getting into the fact that treating Russian imperialism as an inevitable and inherent part of Russian nationhood that persists regardless of the country's government structure, geopolitical orientation, and economic system is just blatant racism and national hatred. Especially when its applied so selectively (e.g. against Russia but not Germany). Somehow I doubt you would accept this argument in any other context, like if all of Latin America decided to form a military alliance with Russia against the US for the same reason.

>>2813163
>It was merely switching out one imperialist occupier for another.
Embarrassing post. The Nazis literally saw the Poles as subhuman and developed a meticulous plan for their deliberate extermination and destruction as a people. The Soviets not only didn't do anything of the sort, but invested heavily in the country's development and helped turn it from an agrarian into an industrial country. Poland was a net drain on Soviet coffers due to subsidies. You don't even understand the meaning of imperialism. The USSR is the only reason Poland even exists today as a state.
>Russian nationalism overwhelmingly is and russian nationalist overwhelmingly are by their nature imperialists and revanchists
Uh huh so you're just peddling blatant chauvinism. To you imperialism isn't the result of economic imperatives but having a bad and inferior culture.

>>2813176
>Its just switching out one occupier for the other
Yeah except one of them saw you as unworthy of existing and was actively working to eradicate your entire nation. The other one did land reform, industrialization, and saved your ass from the other guys.
>Poland was already more developed than the ussr was before the war.
Holy fuck you can't actually believe this. The USSR was one of the foremost industrial powers in Europe even before the war. You legitimately have no idea what you're talking about.
>it's not like i'm wrong imperialism and revanchism is literally what russian nationalism is about
<I'm not a chauvinist! Russians are just inherently evil savages who can't be trusted!

>>2813182
>Yeah one was signifcantly worse than the other but that doesnt excuse the trampling and subjugation of poland.
I'm not excusing every aspect of Soviet policy in Poland. I'm saying that you can't cite historical Russian aggression in Poland as justification for joining an alliance with Germany. It simply makes no sense and reveals that it's not about historical grievances.
>The ussr had plenty of famines while poland did not.
Yes because the USSR was industrializing while Poland was not. The famines were caused by the export of grain to pay for importing industrial machinery and establish a base, combined with the disruption caused by collectivization and resistance thereto. By the end of the 1930s the USSR had thoroughly industrialized, while Poland was still totally backwards and agrarian.
>Russian nationalists and russian nationalism is.
That's a distinction without a difference. Cultural factors which justify imperialism are symptoms of an economic imperative, not causes in and of themselves.

exterminate the banderites

>>2812329
I do not understand why you're pretending that Russia's intentions in Ukraine are not also imperialist. They want to turn it into a puppet state that exists as a buffer against their enemies and as a source of resources. This is exactly what the West wants to do with Ukraine as well.
>>2812380
I understand why NATO expansion was a problem for Russia given that their intentions are to destabilize Russia and turn it into a balkanized puppet state. That being said, starting a war that kills half a million people is not the solution to this and Russia's goals are blatantly nationalist. While proletarian revolution is the ideal solution, if they're not going to do that then Ukraine should defend against both Western and Eastern imperialism. That being said, Russia is a far larger threat to Ukrainian proles than the West is at the moment. Did the West start it with Euromaidan? Yes, pretty much, but that doesn't mean Russia gets a free pass to escalate the power struggle as much as it wants.
>>2812497
Countries do not get to start major wars because they feel threatened.
>>2812569
Yeah but now Russia invaded Ukraine and all of that is fixed now, right?
>>2812605
What? Obama opposed the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine, wtf are you on about?

>>2813295
Obama said that he opposed the annexation of Crimea and then he pivoted to appeasing it. Where are you politically illiterate people coming suddenly literally taken Western politicians at their word and not distinguishing between what was said and what was done?

You don't have to like Ruzzia. You just have to hate Amerikkka enough to want it and its allies gone. I think that's the montra of a lot of these communist parties. Greater Satan and all.

>>2813189
Not him but I wouldn't support any Socialist Party that loved Israel no matter how right they are on other issues. Might as well just turn into a capitalist if I don't actually believe in anything but power

>>2813295
>I do not understand why you're pretending that Russia's intentions in Ukraine are not also imperialist.
Even if they are, that makes no difference to the tasks of communists in the West, the importance of revolutionary defeatism, and of not contributing to pro-war narratives peddled by your own government.

>>2813330
That does not mean he ideologically supported it.
>>2813365
Does the same apply to Iran?

>>2812230
No. Campists are tribalists with no principles, they always support both.

>>2813442
>What narratives?
That NATO is a voluntary defensive alliance rather than a tool for US imperialism in Europe. That Ukraine is a democracy rather than a fascist state. That Russia's invasion was unprovoked rather than a reaction to US encroachment and violation of agreements. Just a few off the top of my head.
>>2813495
>Does the same apply to Iran?
Of course, even moreso since Iran can't be called imperialist under any stretch of the imagination and didn't attack their neighbours, but was attacked themselves.

>>2813185
>I'm saying that you can't cite historical Russian aggression in Poland as justification for joining an alliance with Germany.
history doesn't start in 1941
there's 700+ years of almost unbroken peace between poland and germany meanwhile since it;'s very inception muscovy and later russia constantly raided and/or invaded eastern europe
joining a defense pact taking into account proximity of russia is very reasonable with or without germany

>>2812896
>its own territory and borders in Chechnya.
chechnya is not russia

>>2813677
an accusation with no evidence. it's funny because both "ziggers" and "NAFO" will accuse sabocat of disloyalty. maybe you're just a zealot?

>>2812949
this image baffled him so he had to ignore it

>>2812953
the SMO is politically relevant because it determines whether or not the US will get trillions of dollars of rare earths minerals in the buildup to WW3 and some of the most fertile farmland remaining on earth as we approach climate catastrophe. I'd rather the US lose. It's that simple. Abstract away the entire question of ex-soviet Russia vs. ex-soviet Ukraine and that is the central issue.

>>2813495
>That does not mean he ideologically supported it.

What is this liberalist idealist crap? That's utterly irrelevant lmao.

>>2813677
What pro-Russian propaganda would that be? This is a basic Marxist analysis. Let's go through each one.
<NATO is a voluntary defensive alliance
NATO is neither voluntary nor defensive. It was founded at the end of the Cold War at the height of American "rollback" policy, which aimed to undermine and destroy socialist governments in Europe. It was intended to secure the subordination of Western Europe to American interests and guarantee continued US occupation of those countries in perpetuity. NATO has never conducted joint action in a defensive capacity, but only ever offensively (Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan).
<Ukraine is a democracy rather than a fascist state
Ukraine has suspended elections and banned dozens of political parties, almost all of them socialist or otherwise left leaning. Communist parties and symbolism are illegal there, while open neo-Nazis operate at the highest levels of the military and government. Nazi collaborators are celebrated as national heroes in an official capacity. Far right paramilitaries repress the left and socialists through terrorist violence. Any state where socialist activity is illegal is for all intents and purposes fascist.
<The Russian invasion was unprovoked
This one should be obvious by simply following the chronology of the conflict. Already in the 90s many in US intelligence and foreign policy circles warn that any expansion of NATO would be regarded as aggression by Russia, and that they would react with hostility. With each wave of expansion, the Russians issue formal complaints making it clear that they regard this as a provocation, even as they call for closer relations with the West. Its only after decades of completely ignoring Russian protests that Moscow begins to consider military options. In short, Russian military action occurs after NATO expansion. It therefore cannot be the cause of this expansion, and instead the reverse must be true. To say otherwise is to claim that thunder causes lighting, the effect cannot precede the cause.
>>2813696
>Germany is no longer an extremist nationalist government with intentions of conquest unlike russia.
And Russia wasn't in the 90s and 2000s either. It was a defeated, shattered, weak country that was just barely beginning to get back on its feet. It's government was openly and actively friendly with the West and seeking closer relations, including NATO membership.
>How does that make russian nationalism less imperialistic?
To declare that the cultural element is the driving force regardless of the socioeconomic base is to say that to be Russian is to be an aggressor, in all eras, under all forms of government, in all geopolitical situations, under any mode of production. It's blatant racism and obviously totally contrary to a Marxist understanding of imperialism.
>>2813717
>there's 700+ years of almost unbroken peace between poland and germany
Ridiculous and embarrassing thing to say. German knights were colonizing Polish territory and warring with the Poles already in the middle ages. Prussia played a major role in the partitions that eventually wiped Poland off the map, and huge swathes of Poland remained colonized by Prussia and then Germany for almost 200 years. Prussia also aggressively stomped out the last vestige of Polish independence at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. It was German defeat in WW1 that allowed Poland to re-emerge as a state. Germany is historically at least as much an enemy of Poland as Russia, and I'd argue much worse since Russia never tried to exterminate them.
>>2813719
It's recognized as such by the entire world. It isn't an act of aggression to secure your own borders from religious fanatic separatists.

>>2812380
>ALLY YOURSELF WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
lol and which imperialist finance capitalists control those cucked nations? Lets just say they aren't using rubles!
>IT MEANS I WONT BE ABLE TO INVADE YOU
the invasion happened in 2014. You liberals really think Joe Biden's crackhead son deserved to be in a leadership position, deeply unserious lol

>>2813810
>I'd rather the US lose
antifa: "we're doing harm reduction by helping the Jeffrey Epstein class of Larry Fink globalists fight Putin and Assad"
https://nypost.com/2026/01/23/business/blackrock-and-trump-ally-larry-fink-look-to-make-war-torn-ukraine-great-again/

>>2812234
/thread

>>2813850
>>Germany is no longer an extremist nationalist government with intentions of conquest unlike russia.
>And Russia wasn't in the 90s and 2000s either.
except for the atrocities russians committed in chechnya that is
>>2813850
>It's recognized as such by the entire world.
russia is a historical land in volga basin. it lies between ruthenia, siberia and pontus (also known as wild field)
chechnya happens to be in caucasus which is a whole region away, might as well claim mongolia or baltic countries
>It was German defeat in WW1 that allowed Poland to re-emerge as a state.
imperial germany created the regency council that was the organ from which post ww1 poland was created
>Germany is historically at least as much an enemy of Poland as Russia
as stated before - wars between poland and saxon kings ended in XI century after which we interfered with other's succession crisises a couple times and both took part in great northern war but a proper war between poland and germany only took place at the beginning of ww2
>I'd argue much worse since Russia never tried to exterminate them.
not only did russians try to russify polish population they also tried a policy of physical extermination by expulsion of poles to far east and settlement of russians and jews into former plc (under both russian empire and soviets)

>>2814284
>except for the atrocities russians committed in chechnya that is
Chechnya is part of Russia, and is recognized as such under international law. You can't actually consider it "imperialism" to try and prevent the Balkanization of your country and maintain its internationally recognized borders.
>chechnya happens to be in caucasus which is a whole region away, might as well claim mongolia or baltic countries
Yeah and while we're at it why don't all the white Americans get on boats back to Europe, or at the very least retreat to the territory of the original 13 Colonies.
>as stated before - wars between poland and saxon kings ended in XI century
Uh huh, and we're just gonna pretend that the Northern Crusades and Partitions of Poland didn't happen then.
>not only did russians try to russify polish population they also tried a policy of physical extermination by expulsion of poles to far east
Expulsion and physical extermination are not the same thing. Poles lived under Tsarist rule for centuries, they were still there when Poland re-emerged as a state at the end of WW1. The Nazis had a premeditated plan to physically annihilate the entire Polish nation. Their intention was for there to be no more Poles at all by the 1950s.
<In 1941, the German leadership decided to destroy the Polish nation completely, and in 15–20 years the Polish state under German occupation was to be fully cleared of any ethnic Poles and settled by German colonists.[16]: 32  A majority of them, now deprived of their leaders and most of their intelligentsia (through mass murder, destruction of culture, banning education above the absolutely basic level, and kidnapping of children for Germanization), would have to be deported to regions in the East and scattered over as wide an area of Western Siberia as possible. According to the plan, this would result in their assimilation by the local populations, which would cause the Poles to vanish as a nation.[46]
<Approximately two million ethnic Poles were subjected to a forced Germanization campaign as part of the GPO. According to the plan, by 1952 only about 3–4 million 'non-Germanized' Poles (all of them peasants) were to be left residing in the former Poland. Those of them who would still not Germanize were to be forbidden to marry, the existing ban on any medical help to Poles in Germany would be extended, and eventually Poles would cease to exist. Experiments in mass sterilization in concentration camps may also have been intended for use on the populations.[76] The Wehrbauer, or soldier-peasants, would be settled in a fortified line to prevent civilization reanimating beyond the Ural Mountains and threatening Germany.[77] "Tough peasant races" would serve as a bulwark against attack[78] – however, it was not very far east of the "frontier" that the westernmost reaches within continental Asia of the Nazi Germany's major Axis partner, the Empire of Japan's own Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere would have existed, had a complete defeat of the Soviet Union occurred
Deportation and ethnic cleansing are a crime, but its not nearly the same as declaring a whole people subhuman and unworthy of life. There is no world in which Germany cannot be considered a historic enemy of the Poles.

>>2814351
let me reiterate: russia is exclusively in volga region. that's where russian civilization stems from, that's where local tribes were joined into muscovie people
>why don't all the white Americans get on boats back to Europe
because they're not really european anymore, they're a result of mongrelization that took place on american continent
>Expulsion and physical extermination are not the same thing.
effectively the very same thing
>Poles lived under Tsarist rule for centuries
one century, two too many
>The Nazis had a premeditated plan to physically annihilate the entire Polish nation.
so did soviets and tzarist as previously stated
>There is no world in which Germany cannot be considered a historic enemy of the Poles.
sure buddy if you say so but in that case russians are to be considered even more of a historical enemies of poles becasue historically they've given us a lot more grief

>>2814460
>because they're not really european anymore, they're a result of mongrelization that took place on american continent
Then they should all go back to the original territory of the 13 Colonies. It's also nonsensical to think that there was no cultural blending that took place as a result of Russian colonialism in Eurasia just like what took place through English colonialism in America.
>so did soviets and tzarist as previously stated
Stated falsely. Tsarist policies were chauvinist and assimilationist (as was typical of European empires of the time), they were not genocidal. There was no premeditated Russian plan to murder the entire Polish intelligentsia, forcibly sterilize millions of others, make it illegal to render them medical aid, work millions more to death, and scatter the remainder to Siberia with the deliberate intention that they cease to exist as a people. I've provided a source for this in relation to the Germans, if there is any Russian equivalent then feel free to prove it.
>but in that case russians are to be considered even more of a historical enemies of poles becasue historically they've given us a lot more grief
Again this is based on nothing. There is nothing the Russians did to Poland that the Germans are not also guilty of, plus much, much worse.

>>2814594
>There is nothing the Russians did to Poland that the Germans are not also guilty of
that is true, the difference is the centuries of peace between poland and germany while russia has ceaselessly tried to invade eastern europe
which is why poles would seek alliance including germans over one with russian which is what started this whole spat
there's no point continuing this discussion i'm not going to change your mind about the rest either way and you are not going to change mine

>>2814608
>that is true, the difference is the centuries of peace between poland and germany while russia has ceaselessly tried to invade eastern europe
Yeah well I guess it's easy to have peace in a country when you've partitioned it out of existence.

>>2814612
nice zinger now check who the other participants are

>>2814618
The difference I'm not under any delusion that Russia was an empire that preyed upon its weaker neighbours. You're the one making false claims that Germany didn't do the same.