|
V. Illych L. posted:i think you're misunderstanding my point here: i'm not saying anything about whether russia's gripe is 'reasonable', i'm saying that it was pretty clearly communicated in advance of the invasion and that military action per se was not something which came entirely out of the blue You have a point in that few people expected Russia to act on their stated intentions, but given that shock treatment, is it a surprise that surrounding nations acted the way they did? And furthermore to the point, if we take Russia's stated aims at face value, does it not still make sense for nations like Finland and Sweden to seek other alliances? If someone says their foreign policy is going to be offence, including an armed invasion, it's not necessarily a weird move to try and seek security assurances from elsewhere. edit god loving damnit I keep making new pages without realizing, so I quoted you to be sure, sorry.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
I think the strategic argument comes down to 3 big changes since the Cold War: 1) You aren't actually neutral anymore. Even if we stop pretending that the Swedish/Finnish plan was always to dive into NATO at the hint of a real war, that ship sailed with EU membership. Scandanavia is firmly part of 'the West' as far as Russia is concerned. 'The West' is also much bigger and more integrated than it used to be. 2) As you say, giving up on Total Defence means Sweden today is not the spikey Sweden of the 80's. 3) Russia is not the Soviet Union. In one sense good; Russia does not have the vast military that the USSR did. In a much more meaningful sense, bad; the USSR was seriously interested in strategic stability between itself and the West and broadly bargained and competed within commonly understood 'rules of the game'. Putin's Russia is actively disruptive, not interested in stability, and highly willing to take risks with aggressive behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
I wonder if any meaningful changes in world affairs precipitated the idea that the rules of the game had changed. I must go and put on my thinking ushanka.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Lol and now Erdogan is saying that Sweden promised to deport 73 "terrorists" on Turkey's list or the won't ratify our application. Also that we promised to change local laws (?) according to Turkish demands. This is such a god drat poo poo show, what a fucker. You're in his boat now, (S), happy rowing. It's so loving predictable and makes this whole mess even more pathetic. What's next after "send any Kurd that has ever displeased Erdo straight to Turkish prison"; gift him Gotland? E: like, didn't ANYONE in power learn anything after Turkey started using refugees as blackmail? The current regime will never compromise or agree to anything even remotely reasonable. Potrzebie fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I'm not sure that is what was argued, though. It is a separate matter to state that Russia is behaving irrationally, as an agent in foreign policy, and just saying Vova is lol nutso look at this youtube video. Russia is not achieving their stated goals, in bringing the great masses back to Mother Russia, since they are manifestly generating hostility towards them. They're definitely achieving their stated goal of demilitarizing Ukraine, and it seems pretty likely Ukraines allies will urge some sort of compromise before Ukraine completely runs out of arms and soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
thotsky posted:They're definitely achieving their stated goal of demilitarizing Ukraine, and it seems pretty likely Ukraines allies will urge some sort of compromise before Ukraine completely runs out of arms and soldiers. ??? Ukraine has never been more militarized than now and they’re nowhere near running out of soldiers or arms. Sweden literally just sent them more rocket launchers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
Don't mind the mountains of video pleas and mutiny videos from direly underequipped soldiers, or Zelensky asking for an order of magnitude more materiel than he's getting—Sweden is sending rocket launchers. Ukraine's got this one in the bag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
fnox posted:Sweden literally just sent them more rocket launchers. lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Alright if you’re going to be loving smug about it and just straight up not even relate it to Scandinavia, then explain why Russia’s objectives are getting smaller, and why if they’re not struggling they had to abandon Snake Island. Like for a guy who’s for sure not cheering for Putin and that defends Ukraine’s right to self determination, you seem pretty loving giddy at the prospect of them losing it. And I’m not sure what you’d even get if things were to ever get to that point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
You are confusing amusement at your delusion with giddiness over the needless destruction and loss of life, which literally no-one here has offered their support, even marginally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I'm not sure that is what was argued, though. It is a separate matter to state that Russia is behaving irrationally, as an agent in foreign policy, and just saying Vova is lol nutso look at this youtube video. Russia is not achieving their stated goals, in bringing the great masses back to Mother Russia, since they are manifestly generating hostility towards them. russia's stated goals are the 'independence' of the so-called people's republics, demilitarisation and 'denazification' of ukraine. it is not clear at this point whether those will be achieved (or even specifically what they mean, e.g. does 'denazification' simply mean the liquidation of ultranationalist militias or full-on regime change? i suspect that they left that bit deliberately ambiguous), but it is absolutely not something which we can conclude is not going to happen given the present state of the war. this is (part of) what i meant way back when by the discourse around the invasion being heavily propagandised; it's very common in certain parts of the mainstream press to assert that russian objectives are X (which may or may not be true), which is not happening, and therefore russia is losing the war by this measure. i do not believe that this will have been worth it for russia and that the war will have been a tremendously costly crime, but they remain a much larger and much richer country than ukraine, with a more solid arms industry and evidently deeper stores of munitions, and these things really do matter in terms of winning wars. irrationality is only relevant as a way of saying that there's no point in trying to predict what putin's going to do from any kind of interest calculus, i.e. that the other party is inherently unpredictable and untrustworthy. my point is that this invalidates any attempt to deter him, since deterrence depends on a form of rationality from the deterred party. if we take russia's stated aims at face value, they have no aggressive intentions towards either sweden or finland at this juncture, and foresee no scenario where they will have such intentions in the moderate term. i do not believe that it's wise to take russia at face value, though, and i believe that real deterrence is useful. i also believe that what we realistically need to deter for the foreseeable future is an army of around 200,000 men with artillery, cruise missiles and armoured and air support, and moderate naval assets. this, i maintain, is possible to achieve for the nordic countries without tying ourselves to the hip of the USA, especially if we avoid doing anything too aggressive against the russians; geopolitically i believe that they would be happy to have a genuinely neutral (insofar as that would be possible given EU etc) finno-scandinavia over the NATO alternative, and that this would if anything reduce the probability of aggression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
Indeed, maybe the Russia are the good guys after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:Indeed, maybe the Russia are the good guys after all. this is a pretty dubious take imo, but you do you
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:Indeed, maybe the Russia are the good guys after all. Maybe we should ask the opinions of forum posters V. Ilyich L. and Thotsky just to be sure?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
it's still incredibly tedious to be basically accused of treason for trying to debate and discuss an issue in as reasonable and specific terms as possible
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:Indeed, maybe the Russia are the good guys after all. Poor plucky Russia, mercilessly forced by Nazi Ukraine to continue their invasion until Ukraine surrenders. Why oh why won't Ukraine just surrender and let Russia wipe out their inferior language and culture? Evil, evil Ukraine needlessly prolonging this war by not conveniently unilaterally surrendering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
I don't mean to offend you, I just find it humorous when apparent Leninists and Trotskyists come trying to give their even-handed wisdoms about Russian imperialism. This is an observation, not accusation 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I don't mean to offend you, I just find it humorous when apparent Leninists and Trotskyists come trying to give their even-handed wisdoms about Russian imperialism. This is an observation, not accusation It's only imperialism if the US or UK do it. Otherwise it's sparkling denazification.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I don't mean to offend you, I just find it humorous when apparent Leninists and Trotskyists come trying to give their even-handed wisdoms about Russian imperialism. This is an observation, not accusation as it turns out, an important part of socialist politics is carefully looking into great power politics, militarism and imperialism! bizarre stuff, surely nobody could've anticipated someone into lenin having opinions about russian imperialism
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
I am actually quite happy to designated the arbiter of who are the good guys: Only communist states are the good guys. And possibly anarchist communities so long as they don't cause too much trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:as it turns out, an important part of socialist politics is carefully looking into great power politics, militarism and imperialism! bizarre stuff, surely nobody could've anticipated someone into lenin having opinions about russian imperialism Don't you find it odd how many loudly self-proclaimed socialists, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists etc all seem to be applauding Russian imperialism lately? I must have missed "cheering on genocide" in my Marxism lectures, but it was the 1980s and so much has changed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
I don’t think ramping up military expenditures way past 2% and increasing conscription numbers tenfold to have a standing army that can last a month instead of a week against a Russian invasion is going to be more palatable to the Swedish public than joining a military alliance is. I also don’t see the point of staying “neutral”, strategically speaking. You can argue all you want about the likelihood of being attacked by Russia, but what is the likelihood of being invaded by anything other than Russia? Like what are we neutral to?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Don't you find it odd how many loudly self-proclaimed socialists, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists etc all seem to be applauding Russian imperialism lately? I must have missed "cheering on genocide" in my Marxism lectures, but it was the 1980s and so much has changed. from where i'm sitting this opinion is mainly limited to certain spaces on social media, certain especially conspiratorial grouplets, online weirdos and people from post-soviet countries where the communist parties have mostly degenerated to soviet-nostalgia/russian ethnic parties. nothing much confuses me wrt these spaces and how this comes to be (in some cases it's a sort of reactionary and reified anti-americanism, in some it's simple contrarianism and in some it's soviet nostalgia, all of which are basically explicable to me), so no i don't find it especially odd. fnox posted:I don’t think ramping up military expenditures way past 2% and increasing conscription numbers tenfold to have a standing army that can last a month instead of a week against a Russian invasion is going to be more palatable to the Swedish public than joining a military alliance is. I also don’t see the point of staying “neutral”, strategically speaking. you're neutral to the US, which is not an absent protector. this is important in terms of national sovereignty, which is important in terms of democratic governance. this does not mean that i think that the US is likely to invade, but it does mean that i think that the americans are going to empower some of the worst elements within your country through integration with their own incredibly reactionary military-industrial complex and security arrangements even more than they already are through their incredibly reactionary think-tank ecosystems and religious exports. at a certain point, not going along with whatever geopolitical games the americans decide to play stops being an option. if the americans decide that they're going to try to squeeze china for real, you cannot really refuse to participate if you're dependent on them for security. if the americans decide that you're going to have to hand over certain dissident journalists, you also cannot really refuse if you're dependent on them for security. et cetera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
You're just not a true socialist if you think that Russia or Putin can do wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
I feel like maybe the thread needs a really basic primer of what defense policy even is at this point, because this argument is going to some really weird places. Like, the very purpose of having a defense policy at all is to ensure sovereignty, and a big part of what that actually means is ensuring the ability to make independent political decisions, or in other words for the government to be able to resist foreign political influence. Maintain our right to self-determination and all that highfalutin' nonsense, unironically. It's extremely obvious that joining a military alliance is a two way street: we accept some political influence from the alliance in exchange for a stronger resistance to influence from outside the alliance. This does not in any way have to involve open war or even any sort of state sanctioned violence; a lot of this stuff is based around various kinds of geopolitical posturing. It's obvious to the point of being self-evident that having a credible military defense that does not rely on the goodwill of external allies offers any government a higher degree of political freedom. It's equally obvious though that no country can be truly independent and self-reliant, so we need to form relationships with others. NATO is supposedly "the good guys" so aligning ourselves with them is fine because they're not going to influence us in ways we don't like - except, this is very clearly not true, as the last couple of days have shown. We are in fact getting pressured to do things we absolutely do not like. We are in this extremely awkward position precisely because we do not have a credible military defense, and so the government will accept some very unpalatable foreign influence to get us that credibility. Beggars can't be choosers. Or at least that's the argument on the surface, there's probably a lot of other less rational reasons underneath too. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
You say that now, but just wait until we all get drafted to war against China!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:You say that now, but just wait until we all get drafted to war against China! idgi For the record I am against a Swedish NATO membership, although resigned to its inevitability at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Is leftists for Russia actually a thing? I have seen some people lol at all the Nazis that keep popping up in, like, NATO tweets and liberal media puff pieces, but surely that's just good clean schadenfreude. Despite repeated claims, usually by right-wingers, I have not read or heard a leftist argument for the invasion of Ukraine, or Russian imperialism in general for that matter. I don't really think it makes any sense for us to do so; they're a capitalist state, and usually play ball with the rest of the world order just fine, which is why the west were caught with their pants down. Supporting someone/something lovely to own the libs is a right-wing thing; I would need an extremely compelling ideological reason for supporting any armed conflict, and Russia does not provide that. If anything the actual left seem more staunchly anti-war in this case than the libs, since we are not actively cheerleading the conflict under the pretty disgusting fantasy that every day it goes on is a day where the Ukrainians and its western allies are sticking it to Russia. It mostly just seems like leftists have kept a clearer eye towards where this is heading, and what the human costs are, and this is either misinterpreted or smeared as support for Russia, even after western media starts reporting the same. thotsky fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:idgi he's presumably referring to my point that a country in NATO is not going to be able to stake its own course in the "squeeze" of china (by which i'm hopefully not talking about a direct war, but a policy of aggressive containment and possible economic war) because it's going to be following US interests, and those are in the US' interests as the world's pre-eminent power which sees its position threatened by china's rise. it is simply an observation, not accusation, from our esteemed moderator who naturally has no personal opinion on the matter. e. i would add to thefluff's brief summary above that alliances with entities much more powerful than yourself are necessarily dubious affairs - even one of the socratic dialogues recognises that an alliance with someone more powerful than you is structurally flimsy. if one must ally, it is better to ally with entities which are 1) aligned in the relevant interests and 2) of a dimension where you can credibly call yourselves partners rather than patrons and clients. this because if one party is much stronger than the others, it's going to make sure it comes out ahead in any bargaining because it has more leverage. an alliance with the US and turkey, especially if you're on the left, violates both of those points of preference. it makes sense if and only if one sees russian aggression as a grave and imminent threat to national sovereignty, and this alliance as an effective and, indeed, the only realistic counter to that threat. if one holds this view, then joining is of paramount importance and can justify any number of ugly deals since the alternative is so much worse, but in my opinion the case for it is not especially solid. V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:russia's stated goals are the 'independence' of the so-called people's republics, demilitarisation and 'denazification' of ukraine. it is not clear at this point whether those will be achieved (or even specifically what they mean, e.g. does 'denazification' simply mean the liquidation of ultranationalist militias or full-on regime change? i suspect that they left that bit deliberately ambiguous), but it is absolutely not something which we can conclude is not going to happen given the present state of the war. this is (part of) what i meant way back when by the discourse around the invasion being heavily propagandised; it's very common in certain parts of the mainstream press to assert that russian objectives are X (which may or may not be true), which is not happening, and therefore russia is losing the war by this measure. i do not believe that this will have been worth it for russia and that the war will have been a tremendously costly crime, but they remain a much larger and much richer country than ukraine, with a more solid arms industry and evidently deeper stores of munitions, and these things really do matter in terms of winning wars. Maybe we're starting to miss the forest for the trees here. I do not mean to insinuate Russia is some enigma wrapped in a mystery, shrouded in big question marks like Jim Carrey in Batman. As you say, they have stated goals, and while it seems to have taken the "global West" (pardon the term) somewhat by surprise that they actually acted on those stated goals, here we are. But as foreign policy, arguably Russia's behaviour has been a disaster for them. The economic sanctions may or may not be a long-term thing, but even this short-term break with the global supply chain has caused some rather unfortunate things for them. And diplomatically they've become a pariah state, for lack of a better term, because absolutely no one likes a neighbour who goes around starting wars of aggression. Which is why we are here. Even if US/NATO troops won't be patrolling the Finnish-Russian border, the point of the exercise is that Finland and Sweden want to send a clear message to Russia that their expansionist behaviour is not acceptable. We know that Russia expected this to have been a much briefer campaign, and there are those stories floating around about how Russian soldiers basically expected to be greeted as liberators. Obviously this did not happen, and even if Russia's economic might is sufficient to crush Ukraine, what will they have gained on the international stage? The comparisons to Hitler's Germany are tiresome, but that does seem to be the perception for a lot of folks. Finland in particular tried very hard to lobby within the EU for a joint EU defense system, but this was and is a political non-starter since all the big players are already in NATO. And now that Russia is starting wars of aggression, even if they are not specifically aimed against Finland right at this time, joining NATO simply was the next step. We can all speculate whether the United States would be willing to start a global thermonuclear war for the sake of Finland or the Baltic nations, but if you've ever played Twilight Struggle, the idea is to make the other guy think twice about whether that could happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
we know very little of what the russians were expecting. we can reasonably infer that they were *hoping for* and considered realistic a collapse of the ukainian state upon pressure since their actions make no sense otherwise, but this projection of expectations, foiled plans etc are all basically casting runes - we know very little about these things, because the people saying things about them (the russians themselves, plus mostly british intelligence) can not be trusted. their initial effort failed, and now they seem to have fallen back on a plan B which indeed looks to have been one of the preconsidered outcomes of the initial effort. i also very much doubt that them escalating ukrainian situation into an invasion was *that* much of a shock to western planners; at least a significant military option was very clearly on the table, and it seems to have been considered a perfectly acceptable outcome in washington, london and brussels. what the russians are hoping to gain - why russia has been so dead-set on maintaining ukraine as at least permanently neutral and now seem bent on dismembering it - should indeed be a matter of more debate, but it's basically kremlinology. it's not clear to me, but among the points i've heard which seem reasonably compelling to me are, in no particular order: 1) a secure hold on sevastopol, maintaining their black sea fleet (i.e.: grab crimea's water supply, the famous land bridge etc) 2) placating domestic nationalists 3) securing east-ukrainian industry 4) achieving strategic depth against anti-ballistic missiles or nukes placed in eastern ukraine, i.e. maintain MAD 5) an excuse to consolidate power further domestically 6) usher in the multipolar world with moscow as one of the poles 6.2) commit russia to permanent hostility with the west note: all of these are speculation and may depend on unknown technical factors. it could also simply be wrong altogether. i have no special insight into this and neither does anyone else outside of a pretty small circle of men in russia. out of these, 3) has clearly failed since they're in the process of reducing eastern ukraine to rubble and 6) seems, ah, optimistic, but the others remain very much in play. 5) seems to have fully happened, same with 6.2). the point, though, is that *we are not privy to the russian leadership's strategic priorities* and making assertions as though we were is a very quick road to making some potentially dangerous mistakes. saying, like ben wallace, that "whatever happens, russia has lost", is a misunderstanding of what it means to lose - russia has lost if it's failed to achieve its goals, and we cannot know what those goals are. basically the only way we can be sure that russia has, in fact, lost is if they have no plausible way of claiming to have done what they set out to do or the regime falls. likewise, ukraine can and probably will claim victory in any scenario short of the ukrainian state ceasing to exist as a coherent entity or the installation of a russian puppet government. if the idea of joining NATO is simply to send a message, i think the price is much too high. if the idea is that they have to compromise their sovereignty in order to preserve it, it's much more arguable, and that's what i'm trying to argue - i'm taking what i think is the opponent's best point and having a go at it. e. this is insomniaposting btw so i apologise if it's less coherent or if i've misunderstood something V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
thotsky posted:Is leftists for Russia actually a thing? Sorry, I cannot be bothered to find the source again, so take this for what it is but I did saw a Swedish news article about a bunch of swedish tankies having a pro-Russia march a few months ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 07:13
|
|
|
Yeah, it's clear the Russians wanted.a short war, the media has told us as much. Except when they tell us the Russians want a long one. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/28/putin-ar-the-west-zelenskiy-ukraine-russia
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 08:43
|
|
|
KD wants to chemically castrate rapists https://www.svt.se/nyheter/kd-vill-infora-kemisk-kastrering-for-valdtaktsman
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
Kamrat posted:KD wants to chemically castrate rapists But what is the plan when it comes to female rapists? EDIT: Sorry, that was a dumb question. Women can't be rapists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 14:59
|
|
|
thotsky posted:Is leftists for Russia actually a thing? I have seen some people lol at all the Nazis that keep popping up in, like, NATO tweets and liberal media puff pieces, but surely that's just good clean schadenfreude. Not really, no, but it's a convenient specter for liberals and homefront fascists alike for obvious reasons. You might be able to scrounge up some old guard fossils who were appropriately described as tankies when the term was originally invented and meant something specific, but to label them any more of a threat to anyone, any moreso than those weirdo DPRK friendship associations, borders on comical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
these people definitely exist, but i know of no norwegian socialist parties or organisations which are in any way serious (even Tjen Folket has condemned the invasion and those guys are *weird*) which are pro-russia. as with many other things, individual extremists on the internet get a really quite disproportionate amount of attention - the closest thing to it in a norwegian context is steigan, who's been using a lot of pro-russian sources in his coverage but who's also come out mildly against the invasion though if one isn't of a mind to believe him, that's not very credible. as with many other things, it's much more convenient to assume that people who disagree with something about which you feel strongly to be obvious are malicious and dishonest than to make the effort to engage in good faith, especially on the internet where a lot of people genuinely *are* malicious and dishonest. the issue is when this seeps into one's perception of everyone who holds a certain view - anti-NATO, in this case - and one assumes that Rødt is a crypto-putinist organisation. at that point, it becomes a genuine problem for the functioning of liberal democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
I mean, Netavisen Pio found a 78-year-old DKP veteran who "had a degree of understanding" for Putin's invasion, because he "had read the whole speech", but DKP maintains its unconditional support for the new EL party line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Of course the comfortable labor aristocrats in U.S. client states that are close to the imperial core who benefit from the status quo, such as the ones in Scandinavia, aren't going to rock the boat. The capitalist dictatorship in Europe and the United States ruling the world have been good to many Scandinavians. They are going to continue to think that they are the "Good Guys" and why wouldn't they the man on the TV says so every day. They've been pumped full of propaganda since the day they were born. They may say that they oppose capitalism & colonialism but when push comes to shove they fall in line and continue to tacitly support the continuation of the British Empire. Of course they are going to back the U.S. again in a U.S. proxy war. The modern defeated inconsequential western left has a bad rep for a reason. I think you would have to go outside the imperial core to find leftists that doesn't have the memory of a goldfish and understand what American™ Democracy™ & Freedom™ means and that support Russia over the Christian Fascist American Empire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
Could you provide a link to whatever source you found 'leftists' who applaud, let us call it, say "imperialism with Russian characteristics*"? I'd love to see their analysis of RussianTM FreedomTM and DemocracyTM. I'm sure it's on par with the rest of their text. Thanks in advance. * (Christian, Fascist, Russian) Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 19:04
|
|