Hey, comrades. I am new to lemmygrad and find it odd that there are so many marxist-leninist defending a war of agression started by an oligarch, possibly the richest man in the world. I get that you want to say that NATO is a source of evil on the global stage, but in this particular case you are defending Putin, a warlord, who has invaded many of his neighbouring countries and has stated plans to continue his campaign for megalomanial reasons.
No war but class war. Enabling an autocrat fascist oligarch does not do anything to counter the bad stuff done by NATO and the community should take a firm stand against the use of war for the sake of satisfying the dreams of a tyrant.
This is not a troll post or anything to that extent. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I think it needed to be said.
One more addendum to my earlier comment:
The claim that Putin’s Russia has a history of invading countries around it is simply false. The example typically given to support this assertion is the brief Russo-Georgian war of 2008, however this is a bare faced lie. Even a EU commission investigation into that conflict found that it was in fact Georgia which started it (much like Ukraine did with this one) by attacking the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia which were under Russian protection. Of course they did this at the behest and with the encouragement of the US which led them to believe that the Russians would not fight back, and if they did that the US would have Georgia’s back.
The parallels of that conflict to the one with Ukraine are actually quite impressive. In both cases the conflict was preceded by the US carrying out a color revolution to install a fanatically anti-Russian proxy puppet regime into power in those countries. Then the carrot of EU and NATO membership was dangled in front of these states under the condition that they allow themselves to be used as a battering ram against Russia. The plan was to provoke Russia into a conflict by threatening its vital interests right on its border, portraying Russia’s reaction as aggression and use this to justify imposing sanctions that were supposed to devastate Russia.
Other examples that are sometimes used to portray Russia as an inherently aggressive state are callbacks to certain actions of the Soviet Union, all of which are grotesquely misrepresented and the real history of which is systematically twisted and falsified. And in any case the Russia is not the USSR, so none of that has any bearing on discussions of the behavior if Russia as it exists today unless you subscribe to the racist belief that there is just something in Russian genes that is somehow inherently aggressive.
Most definitely USSR and Russia are wildly different and continuity broke long ago. The characterization of anti Russian sentiments as racist and propagating american propaganda is wrong: First off, the Russian people are wonderful people who right now gets the bad end of the stick due to their leader not acting in their interest, which is no surprise he is not part of their class and has shown he only cares for power and money like ANY capitalist would.
Second, there is something to be said about how we cannot let accusations that a counter movement to a regime is backed by the US have us default to opposition to the movement. The ideals of the movement can be true and fair and deserve support, even if the accusation is true or false. You are talking about Russia’s border and their right to intervene as if it was their sovereign territory. It is not, and this faulty logic is the same as used by the US to justify atrocities in middle and south America.