EADaily, August 22nd, 2025. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to strikes by Western long-range missiles deep into its territory.
None of this is backbreaking, it’s well-established history even outlets like the New York Times were reporting on. Further, annexation isn’t imperialism by itself, the goal of the war isn’t plunder or expropriation of wealth, it’s to establish a buffer zone so the west can’t as easily invade by land. My stance is similar to communist orgs like PSL and FRSO. I’m a communist.
The gymnastics you’re displaying in avoiding the hard details of what’s going on, on the other hand, is more back breaking. Why are you batting so hard for the Banderites and the US Empire? Why not support the people of Donetsk and Luhansk?
establish a buffer zone so the west can’t as easily invade by land
Lolwut. The same west who’s sole military arm is currently licking Putin’s boots? Seems to me Russia had a much simpler and easier strategy if that’s all they wanted: bide their time and not get involved with any foreign military actions.
America seems to be collapsing (with or without their interference) and Europe wouldn’t have any public support for militarization without Putin rolling tanks around and brandishing nukes. NATO could have easily dissolved without doing anything in a decade or two, it was already starting to be viewed as a Cold War relic in the west.
You’re saying it’s logical to risk all of that just to help some poor, needy rebels? They need to defend themselves by painting themselves as the largest active aggressor? That’s just straight up bad geopolitical strategy. The 'Merica-Bad goggles have really messed with your vision.
The west is not “licking Putin’s boots.” They’ve realized that decades of millitary-industrial complex rot has decayed productive capacity, so the west has flashy tools but lacks the logistics to field a long-term war. Still, NATO served its function, as a millitant alliance of imperialist states meant to terrorize and force the world into capitulation.
It isn’t just the US that is collapsing, Europe is too. It depends on the same system of imperialism the US spearheads, that’s why the EU acts in near lock-step with the US when it comes to foreign policy. NATO will not dissolve until imperialism dissolves, even if it requires making up a new enemy constantly.
Russia likely cares little for the seperatists in the Donbass region. What it cares about is NATO neutrality, and establishing a buffer zone in the Donbass that prevents NATO from launching an easy land-invasion over the same route the Nazis took in World War II in Operation Barbarossa. It seems that Russia is going to achieve all of its stated goals, so if that’s “bad geopolitical strategy” then I’d have to say that there aren’t many countries I’d say qualify for “good geopolitical strategy.”
I don’t have “Merica bad” goggles, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. The US Empire is bad, but my thought-process, like other communists, focuses on taking a dialectical materialist approach, including analysis of imperialism in the west, and how that drives western foreign policy, and reaction towards that policy. If you want some place to start with reading theory, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list.
Nothing you’ve touched on has any relevancy to your purported support of the people in the Donbass region. Unless your theory is that Russia is a bastion of socialist empowerment and not 5 capitalists in a trench coat, every single one of your talking points is carrying water for Russian imperial ambition. Swapping out one master for another isn’t breaking your shackles. I hope Moscow is at least cutting you a check for your hard work.
The west is not “licking Putin’s boots.”
The guy in charge of the nukes has been in closer contact with Moscow than any western official in the last 50+ years. He’s constantly spewing support on stage, in the media and in private meetings. He’s been holding this stance well before his first term in office. How can NATO be any kind of threat when he’s in your pocket?
His own sycophants are constantly spouting the same NATO talking points as you. Truly you’re a student of 20th century Stalinism when your foreign policy somehow aligns perfectly with every contemporary fascist and proto-fascist government.
It seems that Russia is going to achieve all of its stated goals
When did I deny that? I’m pointing out that taking this aggressive route is a backward approach if maintaining a strong defensive stance is your primary goal. It’s almost like they wanted to gamble for more unstated goals than just that. Taking territory is only necessary if you insist on a future escalation or want to exploit its people/resources.
I know you’re going to try to explain how this obvious Bad Thing (exploitation and escalation) is really a Good Thing via some Rube Goldberg-esque logical knots. Save your keyboard, I’m just not gonna buy that some special flavors of international meddling via national ambitions are good when your whole argument is formulated against it.
And don’t bother with your cherry picked reading list. It’s all formal dialectics until a different source makes some cogent points at the flaws in your dogma. Then it’s endless genetic fallacies and character attacks on sources with no original thought or debate. We can have a real discussion when you come up with a talking point that isn’t copy-paste.
Are you seriously standing with Russian capital and oligarchs over the working people of Ukraine? Based on your above comments you don’t seem to have a problem with the USSR using military occupation to stop satellite states from leaving their orbit. Surprise surprise, you suddenly oppose it when anyone other than Russia does it. In any event, nobody except Russia considers those referenda results even remotely credible. You’re just another pro-imperial campist.
Extreme western chauvanism coming from you. I am standing with the people of the Donbass region, who saw the president they supported, Yanukovych, ousted in a western-backed coup justified by a Banderite false-flag massacre. I stand with the working class of Ukraine that increasingly opposes this war.
I stand against the Banderites that violently overtook the Ukrainian government and turned it into a far-right gangster state, where even Ukrainian allies are reporting about their immense corruption even during wartime. I oppose NATO, and the US Empire using Ukraine as a proxy to deal as much damage to Russia as possible while carving Ukraine out for resources.
The SSRs and SFSRs overwhelmingly supported remaining in the USSR. There were nationalist and fascist movements in some of these SSRs and SFSRs, including the Banderite OUN in Ukraine that collaborated with the Nazis, and I oppose those anticommunist, often antisemitic movements. At the same time, if a nation decides to secede due to a far-right nationalist group coming to power, and is therefore the target of state violence, then I support them.
It isn’t just Russia that supports the Donbass region and their referenda, it’s widespread across the global south. From Cuba to the Sahel States to Venezuela, Belarus, Iran, the PRC, India, Mali, the DPRK, Eritrea, etc. You have an extremely western viewpoint. I’m not a “pro-imperial campist,” I’m a dues-paying communist, and I hold views dominant among communists and anti-imperialists.
None of this is backbreaking, it’s well-established history even outlets like the New York Times were reporting on. Further, annexation isn’t imperialism by itself, the goal of the war isn’t plunder or expropriation of wealth, it’s to establish a buffer zone so the west can’t as easily invade by land. My stance is similar to communist orgs like PSL and FRSO. I’m a communist.
The gymnastics you’re displaying in avoiding the hard details of what’s going on, on the other hand, is more back breaking. Why are you batting so hard for the Banderites and the US Empire? Why not support the people of Donetsk and Luhansk?
Lolwut. The same west who’s sole military arm is currently licking Putin’s boots? Seems to me Russia had a much simpler and easier strategy if that’s all they wanted: bide their time and not get involved with any foreign military actions.
America seems to be collapsing (with or without their interference) and Europe wouldn’t have any public support for militarization without Putin rolling tanks around and brandishing nukes. NATO could have easily dissolved without doing anything in a decade or two, it was already starting to be viewed as a Cold War relic in the west.
You’re saying it’s logical to risk all of that just to help some poor, needy rebels? They need to defend themselves by painting themselves as the largest active aggressor? That’s just straight up bad geopolitical strategy. The 'Merica-Bad goggles have really messed with your vision.
The west is not “licking Putin’s boots.” They’ve realized that decades of millitary-industrial complex rot has decayed productive capacity, so the west has flashy tools but lacks the logistics to field a long-term war. Still, NATO served its function, as a millitant alliance of imperialist states meant to terrorize and force the world into capitulation.
It isn’t just the US that is collapsing, Europe is too. It depends on the same system of imperialism the US spearheads, that’s why the EU acts in near lock-step with the US when it comes to foreign policy. NATO will not dissolve until imperialism dissolves, even if it requires making up a new enemy constantly.
Russia likely cares little for the seperatists in the Donbass region. What it cares about is NATO neutrality, and establishing a buffer zone in the Donbass that prevents NATO from launching an easy land-invasion over the same route the Nazis took in World War II in Operation Barbarossa. It seems that Russia is going to achieve all of its stated goals, so if that’s “bad geopolitical strategy” then I’d have to say that there aren’t many countries I’d say qualify for “good geopolitical strategy.”
I don’t have “Merica bad” goggles, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. The US Empire is bad, but my thought-process, like other communists, focuses on taking a dialectical materialist approach, including analysis of imperialism in the west, and how that drives western foreign policy, and reaction towards that policy. If you want some place to start with reading theory, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list.
Nothing you’ve touched on has any relevancy to your purported support of the people in the Donbass region. Unless your theory is that Russia is a bastion of socialist empowerment and not 5 capitalists in a trench coat, every single one of your talking points is carrying water for Russian imperial ambition. Swapping out one master for another isn’t breaking your shackles. I hope Moscow is at least cutting you a check for your hard work.
The guy in charge of the nukes has been in closer contact with Moscow than any western official in the last 50+ years. He’s constantly spewing support on stage, in the media and in private meetings. He’s been holding this stance well before his first term in office. How can NATO be any kind of threat when he’s in your pocket?
His own sycophants are constantly spouting the same NATO talking points as you. Truly you’re a student of 20th century Stalinism when your foreign policy somehow aligns perfectly with every contemporary fascist and proto-fascist government.
When did I deny that? I’m pointing out that taking this aggressive route is a backward approach if maintaining a strong defensive stance is your primary goal. It’s almost like they wanted to gamble for more unstated goals than just that. Taking territory is only necessary if you insist on a future escalation or want to exploit its people/resources.
I know you’re going to try to explain how this obvious Bad Thing (exploitation and escalation) is really a Good Thing via some Rube Goldberg-esque logical knots. Save your keyboard, I’m just not gonna buy that some special flavors of international meddling via national ambitions are good when your whole argument is formulated against it.
And don’t bother with your cherry picked reading list. It’s all formal dialectics until a different source makes some cogent points at the flaws in your dogma. Then it’s endless genetic fallacies and character attacks on sources with no original thought or debate. We can have a real discussion when you come up with a talking point that isn’t copy-paste.
You mean the little green men?
…what? Are you genuinely implying that everyone in the Donbass region is a disguised Russian soldier?
Are you seriously standing with Russian capital and oligarchs over the working people of Ukraine? Based on your above comments you don’t seem to have a problem with the USSR using military occupation to stop satellite states from leaving their orbit. Surprise surprise, you suddenly oppose it when anyone other than Russia does it. In any event, nobody except Russia considers those referenda results even remotely credible. You’re just another pro-imperial campist.
Extreme western chauvanism coming from you. I am standing with the people of the Donbass region, who saw the president they supported, Yanukovych, ousted in a western-backed coup justified by a Banderite false-flag massacre. I stand with the working class of Ukraine that increasingly opposes this war.
I stand against the Banderites that violently overtook the Ukrainian government and turned it into a far-right gangster state, where even Ukrainian allies are reporting about their immense corruption even during wartime. I oppose NATO, and the US Empire using Ukraine as a proxy to deal as much damage to Russia as possible while carving Ukraine out for resources.
The SSRs and SFSRs overwhelmingly supported remaining in the USSR. There were nationalist and fascist movements in some of these SSRs and SFSRs, including the Banderite OUN in Ukraine that collaborated with the Nazis, and I oppose those anticommunist, often antisemitic movements. At the same time, if a nation decides to secede due to a far-right nationalist group coming to power, and is therefore the target of state violence, then I support them.
It isn’t just Russia that supports the Donbass region and their referenda, it’s widespread across the global south. From Cuba to the Sahel States to Venezuela, Belarus, Iran, the PRC, India, Mali, the DPRK, Eritrea, etc. You have an extremely western viewpoint. I’m not a “pro-imperial campist,” I’m a dues-paying communist, and I hold views dominant among communists and anti-imperialists.