The general “tankie” position is that the people of Donbas, who mostly do not want to remain part of Ukraine, will not stop suffering attacks without Russia fighting Ukraine off. Russia does not seem interested in siphoning resources from or subjugating the people of Donbas, as they did not the people of Crimea, who merely became Russian citizens. This is very different from US carpetbombing for oil.

Marxists, following Lenin, define imperialism as the monopoly of finance capital. Not as a synonym for ‘conquest’, ‘annexation’, ‘empire’ (not that I’m saying all three necessarily apply to Russia in Ukraine—a conclusion on that isn’t relevant, here).

When US (Anglo-European) finance capital dominates the world through the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and petrodollar, supported by a network of however many hundreds of military bases, all paid for by it’s vassals and enemies due to said dominance, there’s little to no room for anyone else to even consider being imperialist.

We can discuss that if you like. I’ll likely need others to chip in. I’m not proposing that I have all the answers. It’s not something with a clear answer. But we can’t have the debate at all unless we agree on common definitions and frames of reference. Otherwise it feels as though liberals simply do not understand what’s being said. It’s just talking past one another, where one side has a coherent definition and framework and the other side… doesn’t.

I’ll let you decide whether you can honestly say you have a theoretically sound concept of imperialism depending on how much dedicated literature on imperialism you’ve read.

There’s a concept called “critical support”, which most “tankies” are practicing. You have criticism of a side but its the lesser evil so you support it despite your criticism. You won’t hear much of that criticism publicly though because that’s counterproductive.

Like if I want the US to recognize the DPRK as a sovereign state so we can at least begin discussing Korean reunification, why would I bother mentioning my criticism of Juche?

the Russo-Georgian war imperialism

Wait, are you saying Saakashvili has done an imperialism? Because even western/EU reports have confirmed that Georgia started that war, not Russia.

They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.

“From 24 February 2022, which marked the start of the large-scale armed attack by the Russian Federation, to 30 July 2023, OHCHR recorded 26,015 civilian casualties in the country: 9,369 killed and 16,646 injured”

Almost 10 thousand civilians killed is horrible. But compare this to Iraq: it’s less than the first month of the war in Iraq, and no US politicians was tried for war crimes. Maybe you should ponder this factoid.

If you live in a NATO country maybe you should demand Blair and Bush to be tried for their war crimes. If you live in the west you should spend more energy of criticizing the ruling class above you.

“supporting or refusing to criticize” This is a made up leftist. Per definition there is no leftist that uncritically supports a right wing capitalist country.

You’re in a thread with half a dozen comments like “wow libs and tankies are celebrating this?”, followed by a bunch of “tankies” explaining (again) that they do not actually like modern Russia.

You’re saying that the NATO bombings and the NATO-backed rebels had nothing to do with it…? He was fleeing a NATO air strike.

Yes. Gaddafi was also certainly killed based on French intelligence, and there is substantial evidence that the men who assassinated him were French assets. Part of the reason, apart from the broader geopolitical aim of annihilating a country which wanted to engage in the construction of international monetary and commerical systems outside of the orbit and control of the American petro-dollar, Gaddafi had essentially bribed Sarkozy at a certain point and was holding this over the latter’s head (Sarkozy is infamously corrupt). See:

• https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/021012/gaddafi-executed-french-revelations-libyan-agent
• https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/french-secret-service-killed-gaddafi-sarkozys-orders-reports
• https://www.rfi.fr/en/africa/20121001-french-spy-killed-kadhafi-sarkozys-orders-papers-claim
• https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210759/Gaddafi-killed-French-secret-serviceman-orders-Nicolas-Sarkozy-sources-claim.html
• https://www.euronews.com/2018/03/20/sarkozy-in-libya-case-what-does-it-all-mean-

Hegemon’s have to rule by fear. Read any bloodsoaked page from the history of the Roman Empire. Fear is best instilled through unimaginable atrocity. What do you think the rulers of the rest of Africa and the Middle East thought after they saw how Gaddafi, head of the most prosperous (per-capita, quality of life, standard of living, etc.) state in Africa, ended up?

“Better conditions than social-democracies” is a tall order considering that most (every?) Marxist-Leninist state was formed in impoverished, exploited countries, and have frequently been targeted by sanctions, boycotts, and so on. If you told a Chinese peasant in the 40’s that their country’s life expectancy would someday exceed that of the US, they’d call you a liar. Certainly it wasn’t about to happen under the Nationalists or anybody else.

Not everyone is allowed to have social democracy. For example, Norway’s economy benefits greatly from their oil revenues, but in much of the world, the presence of oil resources is called an “oil curse,” because Western governments destabilize and overthrow governments that bring those profits back to the people. When Iran’s left-leaning (but not communist) government in the 50’s tried to reclaim control of their oil from their British colonial overlords, the CIA did a coup and installed a fascist. There are countless other stories of this happening all around the world.

No country has lifted more people out of poverty and extreme poverty than China. Granting developing countries a second option for investment is an enormous boon for the world, especially since China is much less restrictive over other countries’ domestic economic policies compared to the IMF.

This is why I would argue that, even if you disagree with China’s system, if you want any other system besides capitalism to be available to people in the developing world, then you should recognize that China is furthering that goal. I don’t consider China’s system to be perfect or ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but I’ve read enough history to see more ideal systems get crushed time and again.

Do social democracies also ensure better living conditions for the impoverished nations they continue to exploit so they can support their own standards of living?

I don’t see any extreme left or right regime that provided better conditions than social-democracies.

I’m not sure what you define as an “extreme regime” but you can try looking at Cuba, China, or the USSR, for starters.

Because instead we can spend the energy into the development of social-democracy, which has a better track record.

Social Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism, so no. I don’t accept such imperialist half measures

I’m sorry, are you the same person I’ve been talking to? Because it seems like you haven’t actually read anything I’ve written.

The Ukrainians are the ones who can decide if and when they want to surrender.

Western politicians actively sabotaged peace talks. Read previous comments for sources.

They are gaining ground every day

This has no basis in reality. Even overly optimistic western sources have admitted the failure of the spring counteroffensive.

have all the time they want

How can you be this wrong? They have limited manpower and more and more soldiers die every day. Every week spent warring is a huge burden on their economy.

I’m not gonna answer you again since you are completely out of touch with reality. Even prowar western journalists are more careful with their wording.

On your first point: Russia’s argument for why they have gone back on the security exchange for Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament is one of the very same arguments NATO uses when claiming that they never promised russia that they wouldn’t expand NATO east of Germany… The US either lies, and denies making the promise (they did) or they say that they promised the soviet union, which is not the same thing as Russia. Ukraine had a discontinuity in government in 2014: this is something they and the EU acknowledged officially during Ukraine’s application to join the EU… So idk if the government of Ukraine today is a distinct entity from the political formation in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union, but that is what Ukraine and the EU have said as much.

Your first point in your second paragraph is something that could be said of Ukraine/NATO just as well. If anything, Ukraine has completely expended its reserve of weapons and now relies on a dwindling supply of old weapons from NATO… it may have just gone through a 3rd army in this last offensive… if anything a peace agreement would give NATO more time to arm Ukraine for another time when they decide to break the peace agreement… This isn’t based on speculation or a belief that Ukrainians are dishonest (unlike most speculation about Russia) because this is exactly what Angela Merkle said Minsk I & II were for: to use a peace deal to give NATO time to arm Ukraine for war… In order for peace to be achieved, both sides are going to have to accept some sort of good faith. If that can’t be done then more people will continue to have their lives thrown away.

The Soviets weren’t removed from Afghanistan any more than we were – they left because they lacked popular support and kept taking losses (because we were arming terrorists who would go on to do 9/11, but I’m sure that type of blowback won’t come from arming Ukranian neo-Nazis!). The parts of Ukraine Russia is occupying largely wanted to leave Ukraine before the war even started. It’s not the same scenario.

Even your best case scenario is “fight a bloody stalemate until one side runs out of troops,” which is incredibly destructive to Ukraine even if they win, and of course they won’t, because the smaller country that can’t just sit back behind extensive defenses isn’t going to win a bloody stalemate.

What does totalitarian mean?

they were always free to move

Word for word right-wing talking point

If they want to live under a totalitarian regime they were always free to move to Russia themselves

This is literally just “if you hate america ukraine so much, go back to your own country!” repainted as a liberal viewpoint

Should the Bosnian Muslims just have gone back to their own country to avoid being murdered by right wing paramilitaries too?

Ah yes the ever popular “they should have self deported instead of getting ethnically cleansed”

How come you guys were okay with kosovo ‘voting’ to leave Serbia, but suddenly this is a bridge too far?

Careful not to let your MAGA hat fall when you yell at the clouds.

Do you realize how sociopathic this sounds? Are all separatists deserving of being bombed by the country they live under? Would you say the same to the people of Yemen, or Palestine or Ethiopia? “You’re being bombed, so just leave”?

“general patriotism” I see swastikas, things that sub in for swastikas, iron crosses, and totenkopfs.

You can fuck right off with the “centuries of colonialism” that’s literlly the west repackaging its own history to accuse others of.

I thought you guys were the ones who said that portions of a country can unilaterally vote to leave and its okay. That was what you lot pulled with Serbia, why does it suddenly no longer apply here?

The pictures I’m taking about have been taken and shared since the invasion. This is not ‘historical’ in the sense of pre-dating the invasion.

In any event, if the people you’re talking to are discussing reasons for the invasion, the salient facts are the ones that pre-date the invasion. Nobody had the benefit of being able to see facts or pictures taken after the invasion before it occurred; these newer details could not have factored into the equation beforehand. Which may explain (I have no idea because you’re talking in the abstract and not providing receipts) why people would bring up the (highly relevant) historical context.

Ukraine is under martial law. Eleven opposition parties have been suspended. The communist party was banned and it’s assets seized. This is not what democracy looks like. It is in no way pluralist. Maybe you have a different definition of pluralist democracy than I do.

Will things improve after the war? It’s hard to say now but considering that Ukraine went after the communist party eight or more years ago, it’s unlikely. The fate of ‘pro-Russian’ parties depends on who wins the war. They’ll either be demonised or praised for being ‘right all along’. You can guess how the narrative will be rewritten, either way.

Unfortunately, the aftermath of this war will be terrible for years. That outlook is even bleaker if Ukraine loses with any kind of quasi-military intact. They are now even more heavily armed than before, they will be pissed at losing, and they will be more battle hardened than ever. So even if Russia wins, the political landscape will look different throughout the region, but it’s unlikely to become a pluralist democracy. (Please notice the ‘ifs’ in this paragraph, I have made no prediction as to who will ‘win’.)

You can refer to whatever you like. You are imputing motive on people for saying things you don’t like. That does not mean that the imputed motive is the real motive. Some people have a more nuanced take on the war than you are willing to accept. Having a nuanced understanding of a complicated issue requires an understanding of as many factors as possible.

Looking at a process (e.g. war) in all its relations (internal, historical, political economic, to start with) is the basic Marxist approach and yet is alien to the liberal/bourgeois approach, so I understand if this is unfamiliar to you. If you want to see whether communists do this kind of thing with any other topic (it’s literally every topic) please pick up almost any Marxist text. Marx’s ‘Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte’ is a good example of this ‘historical materialism’.

I don’t want to impute motive to you, so I’ll just say that I don’t understand why you’re trying so hard to erase or apologise for the fact that Ukraine had and has a Nazi problem. Nobody that I know of is claiming that the Nazis are in control of every state civil or military organ. Usually, the claim is that the yanks funded anti-Russian, pro-west separatists and the Nazi militias to provoke Russia. Read that how you will.

pluralist democracy

Pluralist democracy is when you seize power through force and then ban opposition parties.

bollocks

I see the cognitive dissonance is kicking in for you. Hopefully you will recover, and you’ll read western mainstream narratives more critically.

How funny is this bit though?

"The BBC had been among the first to warn of Azov, criticizing Kyiv in 2014 for ignoring a group that “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.” A 2018 report noted Azov’s “well-established links to the far right.”

Shortly after Putin’s invasion, though, the BBC began to assert that although “to Russia, they are neo-Nazis and their origins lie in a neo-Nazi group,” the Azov Regiment was being “falsely portrayed as Nazi” by Moscow."

They suddenly became not-nazis in February 2022? But they kept the wolfsangel? Was BBC spouting Russian misinfo in 2014? Or was it a Russian time travelling double agent who wrote all those articles for prominent western papers about the concerning rise of neonazis in Ukraine? If they are so fringe, why are they giving them so much airtime?

oh, okay, good talk