Just because Trump also breaks international law, doesn’t make it better when Putin does it (and not the first time either). Yes, Russia Man Bad! 👍🏻 Orange Man Also Bad!
Joe Biden supported and enabled the genocide in Gaza, and every president before him committed invasions and war crimes. The fact that you think it’s just a Trump thing and not a US empire thing reveals your geopolitical understanding to be puddle-deep. Hell, Putin was our guy. We put him there.
That is not an excuse to forgo object permanence and pretend Trump is an anomaly in any way except for how blatant he is. He’s not a deviation from US policy, he’s a distillation of it.
Liberals were happy to close their eyes and support genocide when it was covered by the thinnest veil of decorum
You think the fact that Russia is put under sanctions, barred from participating in international sports and other activities, has their gas lines to the rest of Europe bombed by the US, and is generally treated like they’re Nazi Germany is sensible? In a world where the countries making those decisions turn away when Israel and the US do much worse?
Well the US and Israel are much worse than Russia, so they should be treated worse than that, as should Western European countries that support their atrocities
Russia has been doing imperialism and colonialism since forever. Otherwise there wouldn’t be such significant Russian populations that are still monolingually Russian in former Soviet states.
The USSR was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the Russian Federation inhereted no colonies of the tsarist Russian Empire because of this. There was no “soviet imperialism.”
Ignore the violent repression of eastern Europe, the subjugation of native populations in the south and east, the proxy wars and the sphere of influence and international power politics.
I’m having a hard time right now and you genuinely made me laugh, thank you!
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It aided national liberation movements in Algeria, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Having influence internationally is not imperialism.
Interesting, it’s your one and only comment in a one month old account.
“Russification” was stopped by the soviets, and there was a two-fold effort to promote an internationalist “soviet” identity while preserving national identities. Derussifying surnames was not a priority, but numerous gains were made for cultural preservation.
You’re also confusing culture with imperialism, which is a form of international exploitation on an economic basis typically reinforced by methods like couping, installing compradors, etc.
No it wasn’t, otherwise Tajiks wouldn’t still have -ov and -ova at the end of their surnames. Also see link to article written in the late 70s by an actual anti-imperialist socialist, explaining why the Soviet Union totally was imperialist.
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm
As explained earlier, your supposed “anti-imperialist socialists” were upholding Pol Pot in Cambodia against Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR, while the USSR was supporting Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba, Algeria, and more. The groups siding with China in the Sino-Soviet split took all manner of incorrect lines as an overcorrection from Khrushchev’s revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. In the same time period, the USSR was supporting revolution in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa and more.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It was in no way fascist either, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good book going over the political economy of the later soviet union.
Also, -ov and -ova are prerevolutionary loans which probably feel as foreign to Tajiks as Fitz- does to us. Frankly, griping about the Soviets failing to derussify surnames is pretty boneheaded given how protective most people are of their surnames, but even if they did derussify those, anti-Bolsheviks would instead be whinging about the Soviets forcing people to change their surnames.
The entire existence of the US is imperialism and colonialism. Until the 1960s the US had a policy of eradicating indigenous languages and cultures. So did Canada and Australia by the way.
Do you think imperialism in Russia stopped with the fall of the Tsar? If the Soviet Union was so anti-imperialist, why weren’t surnames in member states derussified? Why weren’t placenames derussified? Why didn’t Russian settlers move back to the Russian homeland?
Same goes for the US and so on. At least reparations/compensation and derussification/deanglicization are necessary.
I dunno, Russian man seems pretty sensible all things considered.
If the warzaw pact was still a thing and it had slowly been inducting south- and central American nations, despite agreements not to do so, and it was now about to induct Mexico (which had had its government couped and replaced with a pro-russian government some years before), then I think it would be pretty sensible of the US to draw a red line at mexican Warzaw pact membership and invade in order to avoid it.
Also in this analogy Texas is part of Mexico and the Mexican government has been bombing Texas for eight years, in breach of two treaties with the US.
It’s not a perfect metaphor, but Texas would be the the two Ukrainian states with a majority ethnic russian population that sought independence after eurromaidan
Russia: Engaged in a military operation because of ever encroaching US imperialism via NATO and installing a Nazi puppet government against the wishes of the Ukrainian people as is the norm and attempting to liberate them
If Putin said the sky was blue, would you suddenly insist it wasn’t?
Also: “everyone I disagree with is a russian propagandist. I am the only sapient creature in the world” - You, when you’re particularly honest with yourself
Just because Trump also breaks international law, doesn’t make it better when Putin does it (and not the first time either). Yes, Russia Man Bad! 👍🏻 Orange Man Also Bad!
Nobody mentioned Trump. I am so fucking sick of liberals acting like the US wasn’t constantly attacking other countries before Trump.
Joe Biden supported and enabled the genocide in Gaza, and every president before him committed invasions and war crimes. The fact that you think it’s just a Trump thing and not a US empire thing reveals your geopolitical understanding to be puddle-deep. Hell, Putin was our guy. We put him there.
Liberals still deny that Biden is responsible for the genocide in Gaza
Trump is the president right now though
That is not an excuse to forgo object permanence and pretend Trump is an anomaly in any way except for how blatant he is. He’s not a deviation from US policy, he’s a distillation of it.
Liberals were happy to close their eyes and support genocide when it was covered by the thinnest veil of decorum
I’m just saying they might’ve mentioned Trump only since he is the president right now
That’s fair, but I also can’t know if they think Trump is an aberration and I consider it important to broaden the scope of the discussion
You think the fact that Russia is put under sanctions, barred from participating in international sports and other activities, has their gas lines to the rest of Europe bombed by the US, and is generally treated like they’re Nazi Germany is sensible? In a world where the countries making those decisions turn away when Israel and the US do much worse?
So do you feel like Russia shouldn’t be treated like that or the US and Israel also should be treated like that? I think the latter tbh
Well the US and Israel are much worse than Russia, so they should be treated worse than that, as should Western European countries that support their atrocities
The United States didn’t start invading and meddling in other countries until trump?
Trump has been president since 1846?
Russia has been doing imperialism and colonialism since forever. Otherwise there wouldn’t be such significant Russian populations that are still monolingually Russian in former Soviet states.
The USSR was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the Russian Federation inhereted no colonies of the tsarist Russian Empire because of this. There was no “soviet imperialism.”
Absolutely hilarious!
Ignore the violent repression of eastern Europe, the subjugation of native populations in the south and east, the proxy wars and the sphere of influence and international power politics.
I’m having a hard time right now and you genuinely made me laugh, thank you!
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It aided national liberation movements in Algeria, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Having influence internationally is not imperialism.
Interesting, it’s your one and only comment in a one month old account.
Why werent surnames in Soviet states derussified then?
“Russification” was stopped by the soviets, and there was a two-fold effort to promote an internationalist “soviet” identity while preserving national identities. Derussifying surnames was not a priority, but numerous gains were made for cultural preservation.
You’re also confusing culture with imperialism, which is a form of international exploitation on an economic basis typically reinforced by methods like couping, installing compradors, etc.
No it wasn’t, otherwise Tajiks wouldn’t still have -ov and -ova at the end of their surnames. Also see link to article written in the late 70s by an actual anti-imperialist socialist, explaining why the Soviet Union totally was imperialist. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm
As explained earlier, your supposed “anti-imperialist socialists” were upholding Pol Pot in Cambodia against Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR, while the USSR was supporting Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba, Algeria, and more. The groups siding with China in the Sino-Soviet split took all manner of incorrect lines as an overcorrection from Khrushchev’s revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. In the same time period, the USSR was supporting revolution in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa and more.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It was in no way fascist either, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good book going over the political economy of the later soviet union.
Hey, why did you leave this comment out when running to MeanwhileOnGrad? Didn’t want to admit that you think Pol Pot defenders are “real socialists?”
I like how Emopunker omitted your last reply in a thread griping about you.
Also, -ov and -ova are prerevolutionary loans which probably feel as foreign to Tajiks as Fitz- does to us. Frankly, griping about the Soviets failing to derussify surnames is pretty boneheaded given how protective most people are of their surnames, but even if they did derussify those, anti-Bolsheviks would instead be whinging about the Soviets forcing people to change their surnames.
The entire existence of the US is imperialism and colonialism. Until the 1960s the US had a policy of eradicating indigenous languages and cultures. So did Canada and Australia by the way.
Do you think imperialism in Russia stopped with the fall of the Tsar? If the Soviet Union was so anti-imperialist, why weren’t surnames in member states derussified? Why weren’t placenames derussified? Why didn’t Russian settlers move back to the Russian homeland?
Same goes for the US and so on. At least reparations/compensation and derussification/deanglicization are necessary.
Multiculturalism good except for those orc hordes 🤡
Nice strawman.
I dunno, Russian man seems pretty sensible all things considered.
If the warzaw pact was still a thing and it had slowly been inducting south- and central American nations, despite agreements not to do so, and it was now about to induct Mexico (which had had its government couped and replaced with a pro-russian government some years before), then I think it would be pretty sensible of the US to draw a red line at mexican Warzaw pact membership and invade in order to avoid it.
Also in this analogy Texas is part of Mexico and the Mexican government has been bombing Texas for eight years, in breach of two treaties with the US.
So mexico = ukraine? Then texas = ?
It’s not a perfect metaphor, but Texas would be the the two Ukrainian states with a majority ethnic russian population that sought independence after eurromaidan
Well lets see the why shall we.
Russia: Engaged in a military operation because of ever encroaching US imperialism via NATO and installing a Nazi puppet government against the wishes of the Ukrainian people as is the norm and attempting to liberate them
US/Orange man; oil and stopped those EvIl CoMmiEs
Oh shit, I forgot I’m posting to a Russian propaganda board 🙄 my bad, forget it happened. And please don’t report me to GRU.
If Putin said the sky was blue, would you suddenly insist it wasn’t?
Also: “everyone I disagree with is a russian propagandist. I am the only sapient creature in the world” - You, when you’re particularly honest with yourself
They 100% would
Considering how they reacted when Putin explained basic Eastern European history to
you’re probably right
“Russian Propaganda” Means Disputing US Propaganda
Cope