See the full interview on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/russias-party-on-87936354The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) is the second ...
I believe it’s a case of either believing the KPRF is the Russian equivalent of the Yankee CPUSA in the negative connotations that’s normally associated with cpusa, that the KPRF is a boomer social luncheon party to spend days in nostalgia for the CCCP, or that the KPRF is objectively captured by the Russian capitalists under Putin and are controlled opposition.
And I’ve seen some takes dismissing the RCWP-KPRF as being a patsoc party on the grounds of their chauvinist LGBT+ views. But the few people that did hold that view that I knew of haven’t shown their face for a while so the RCWP’s more or less an unknown existence
It becomes even worse if you point out that a preemptive invasion of a weaker nation due to a fear of attack is the same justification that the USA used for the invasion of Iraq.
The difference is that in the case of the US that was a lie. And Ukraine being a US proxy is not actually the weaker party in this, Russia is because they don’t have the full backing of an alliance like NATO behind them. So Russia was entirely justified in feeling threatened by a militarized russophobic Nazi regime, not on the other side of an ocean but right on their border, wanting to join a hostile military alliance who openly declare that their principal enemy is Russia.
People who try to draw superficial comparisons between Ukraine and Iraq are lying by omission because literally everything about this is different.
I was expecting an attempt at an argument. I mean, criticizing the Ukrainian Communist Party has a “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” energy to it.
And there are no NATO bases currently in Ukraine nor was there support for Ukraine in 2008 to repel Russian aggression. So it might have been a strategic worry for Russia, but nothing ever came of it.
And it comes back to my original point that the war was pre-emptive attack on a weaker sovereign nation for the stated purpose of defending the stronger nation from possible attack. This war has Bush doctrine all over it.
And it comes back to my original point that the war was pre-emptive attack on a weaker sovereign nation for the stated purpose of defending the stronger nation from possible attack. This war has Bush doctrine all over it.
It’s more complicated than that. There is still context from 2014 up till now, Minsk 1 and 2. Russia tried diplomacy talks then the SMO happened.
Are you talking about 2014, when the U.S. orchestrated a coup in Ukraine, and Crimean residents were overwhelmingly in favor of joining Russia, foreshadowing the following decade of low-intensity civil war leading up to the current war?
Then would that justify France invading Niger after the Niger coup due to geopolitical reasons?
And these votes only seem to happen immediately after an invasion without any international observation. Or are you going to freak out when I point out this is how the Sudetenland got annexed.
Is Niger right next door to France? Did the most powerful country on the planet, that has been trying to destroy France for a century, instigate that coup, start arming up the Nigerien military, and then intimate that Niger would be allowed to join its aggressive military alliance? Do Nigeriens want to join France?
these votes only seem to happen immediately after an invasion without any international observation
You’re right to be skeptical. However, look at things like the shared political history of Russia and Crimea (both in the USSR longer than modern Ukraine has existed), the disagreeements between Crimea and Ukraine dating back to the 90s, the presence of ethnic Russians in the region, the absence of violence before or after the annexation, and the separatist movements in parts of Ukraine that also have large ethnic Russian populations. Nothing about the situation – other than western propaganda – suggests Russia is there against the will of the people.
Folks over at hexbear seem displeased with this take
deleted by creator
Yeah it’s still a bit divided over there on opinions of the big two communist parties over in the RF.
What’s the situation?
I believe it’s a case of either believing the KPRF is the Russian equivalent of the Yankee CPUSA in the negative connotations that’s normally associated with cpusa, that the KPRF is a boomer social luncheon party to spend days in nostalgia for the CCCP, or that the KPRF is objectively captured by the Russian capitalists under Putin and are controlled opposition.
And I’ve seen some takes dismissing the RCWP-KPRF as being a patsoc party on the grounds of their chauvinist LGBT+ views. But the few people that did hold that view that I knew of haven’t shown their face for a while so the RCWP’s more or less an unknown existence
It becomes even worse if you point out that a preemptive invasion of a weaker nation due to a fear of attack is the same justification that the USA used for the invasion of Iraq.
The difference is that in the case of the US that was a lie. And Ukraine being a US proxy is not actually the weaker party in this, Russia is because they don’t have the full backing of an alliance like NATO behind them. So Russia was entirely justified in feeling threatened by a militarized russophobic Nazi regime, not on the other side of an ocean but right on their border, wanting to join a hostile military alliance who openly declare that their principal enemy is Russia.
People who try to draw superficial comparisons between Ukraine and Iraq are lying by omission because literally everything about this is different.
So if Ukraine couldn’t defend itself due to US support, then the comparison would have been accurate?
deleted by creator
I was expecting an attempt at an argument. I mean, criticizing the Ukrainian Communist Party has a “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” energy to it.
Clown
Use our emoji
:debate-pervert:instead if you can, more accessibleUnfortunately it doesn’t work for me, so I have to copy paste it like this.
If Ukraine couldn’t defend itself due to US support, there would have been no war in the first place.
The threat of NATO having bases ON the Russian border is why this war is happening.
But don't take it from me, take it from this guy
Or better yet, how about the CIA?
They knew in 2008 that this was THE red line for Russia, then laughed and crossed it anyway, and it played out EXACTLY as their analysts said it would
And there are no NATO bases currently in Ukraine nor was there support for Ukraine in 2008 to repel Russian aggression. So it might have been a strategic worry for Russia, but nothing ever came of it.
And it comes back to my original point that the war was pre-emptive attack on a weaker sovereign nation for the stated purpose of defending the stronger nation from possible attack. This war has Bush doctrine all over it.
It’s more complicated than that. There is still context from 2014 up till now, Minsk 1 and 2. Russia tried diplomacy talks then the SMO happened.
2008 was Georgia, what are you talking about?
“If the situation was entirely different, would this comparison be accurate?”
I’m only asking because of the previous invasion of Ukraine.
Are you talking about 2014, when the U.S. orchestrated a coup in Ukraine, and Crimean residents were overwhelmingly in favor of joining Russia, foreshadowing the following decade of low-intensity civil war leading up to the current war?
Then would that justify France invading Niger after the Niger coup due to geopolitical reasons?
And these votes only seem to happen immediately after an invasion without any international observation. Or are you going to freak out when I point out this is how the Sudetenland got annexed.
Are Nigeriens in favour of joining France?
Is Niger right next door to France? Did the most powerful country on the planet, that has been trying to destroy France for a century, instigate that coup, start arming up the Nigerien military, and then intimate that Niger would be allowed to join its aggressive military alliance? Do Nigeriens want to join France?
You’re right to be skeptical. However, look at things like the shared political history of Russia and Crimea (both in the USSR longer than modern Ukraine has existed), the disagreeements between Crimea and Ukraine dating back to the 90s, the presence of ethnic Russians in the region, the absence of violence before or after the annexation, and the separatist movements in parts of Ukraine that also have large ethnic Russian populations. Nothing about the situation – other than western propaganda – suggests Russia is there against the will of the people.
History, what even is it?
deleted by creator