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.
The 4 oblasts, which is what Russia is trying to annex, voted to join Russia. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (not socialist, despite the name) both requested Russia to come in and help them against Kiev’s shelling of them.
Russia has no colonies, not since the Tsar. As the USSR, it was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and as the modern Russian Federation, it is too poor to practice imperialism, it lacks the financial capital necessary to plunder the global south. The dissolution of the USSR was devatating for their economy, even though they are capitalist now and thus would logically benefit from imperialism, they can’t actually practice it as the western Empire is already set up and fully saturates the global south.
Are you really citing those referendums? Putting aside the MANY criticisms of the methodology, there’s no referendum on earth that would legitimately get 85% turnout and 85% support without being supported by both sides.
Not reading the rest, because it is ludicrous to cite those referendum. And those blatantly fake referendums serve to de-legitimize Russia’s invasion almost as much as the hospitals they’ve bombed.
If you have evidence other than your personal doubts, let me see it. I don’t think it’s surprising that regions that are predominantly Russian ethnically, culturally, and linguistically, that were in a bloody decade long civil war, would vote to join Russia.
As I mentioned, I put aside the criticisms of methodology and just went wit the official claims of Russia.
Try reading this to get you started if common sense isn’t enough for you. If you still have issues, don’t come to me, do your own research because I can’t be bothered doing more than a wikipedia search for you.
I’ve read it already, but thanks. Again, I don’t find it surprising at all that a group of ethnic Russians that have been in a decade-long bloody civil war would vote to join Russia over staying at war with Kiev. Criticize my common sense all you want, I don’t take western claims at face value either.
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.
The US and NATO are literally fighting a proxy war against Russia as we speak. This has been openly stated now by no lesser person than the US Secretary of State.
NATO destroyed Libya and Yugoslavia, it’s as much a “defensive” pact as the Israeli “Defense” Force is. And yes, NATO does threaten with nukes, that was the entire reason why the USSR sent Cuba nukes through project Anadyr, as a response to the Jupiter missiles stationed in Turkey and the overextension of NATO into East German territory. This practice hasn’t stopped, NATO encircles countries and threatens them with obliteration if they don’t capitulate and free up their markets for western plunder.
What “shit” did I spew? Which of these do you disagree with:
The west is imperialist
NATO destroyed Libya
NATO destroyed Yugoslavia
NATO placed the Jupiter missiles in Turkey and directly aimed them at the USSR, prompting the USSR to send nukes to Cuba
The IDF is an offensive force for settler-colonialism, not a defensive force
NATO over-extended into East German territory
NATO encircles countries to open them up for foreign plunder
All of these are well-established facts. In light of this, the Russian Federation is indeed under constant threat from NATO, a legacy of conflict that began in the Cold War against the Soviets and continues today against the RF. Russia’s survival as a country against NATO lies on nuclear deterrance, if they stop reminding NATO, then NATO will of course be more likely to cross red lines.
Is russia trying to annex territory that doesnt belong to them right now or not? Yes or no answer please.
Let me know how the west is annexing other countries making them imperalist.
Nobody ever wanted or needed to attack Russia. Nato is not a country nor is it annexing territory nor is it forcing people to join it. That is straight up russian propaganda to supress the real problems within the country and to distract. You have a fucking monarch up there with more wealth than he would ever need and yet this guy decides to attack a country minding its own business.
Btw, Ukraine used to rely on nuclear deterrance but it was Russia (and not nato) attacking it after signing multiple deals that it wouldnt.
Russia has no colonies. As the USSR, it was an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial force. After its dissolution, the economy imploded and is still recovering. It has had no opportunity to gain colonies like it had under the Tsar, even if they wanted to.
NATO started as an anti-communist alliance, with terrorist operations like Operation Gladio. Now, it maintains its status as the strongest alliance of imperialist countries on the planet. It’s as “defensive” as the Israeli “Defense” Force is.
Water is wet in other news.
Go.fuck.yourself.russia
yeyeye orrrrr the US empire could end it’s proxy war and NATO colonialism!
Removed by mod
The 4 oblasts, which is what Russia is trying to annex, voted to join Russia. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (not socialist, despite the name) both requested Russia to come in and help them against Kiev’s shelling of them.
Russia has no colonies, not since the Tsar. As the USSR, it was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and as the modern Russian Federation, it is too poor to practice imperialism, it lacks the financial capital necessary to plunder the global south. The dissolution of the USSR was devatating for their economy, even though they are capitalist now and thus would logically benefit from imperialism, they can’t actually practice it as the western Empire is already set up and fully saturates the global south.
Are you really citing those referendums? Putting aside the MANY criticisms of the methodology, there’s no referendum on earth that would legitimately get 85% turnout and 85% support without being supported by both sides.
Not reading the rest, because it is ludicrous to cite those referendum. And those blatantly fake referendums serve to de-legitimize Russia’s invasion almost as much as the hospitals they’ve bombed.
If you have evidence other than your personal doubts, let me see it. I don’t think it’s surprising that regions that are predominantly Russian ethnically, culturally, and linguistically, that were in a bloody decade long civil war, would vote to join Russia.
As I mentioned, I put aside the criticisms of methodology and just went wit the official claims of Russia.
Try reading this to get you started if common sense isn’t enough for you. If you still have issues, don’t come to me, do your own research because I can’t be bothered doing more than a wikipedia search for you.
Liberals in a nut shell
I’ve read it already, but thanks. Again, I don’t find it surprising at all that a group of ethnic Russians that have been in a decade-long bloody civil war would vote to join Russia over staying at war with Kiev. Criticize my common sense all you want, I don’t take western claims at face value either.
Try not to break your back bending over backwards that hard to justify Russian imperialism.
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.
Oh so the US and NATO started attacking Russia right?
The US and NATO are literally fighting a proxy war against Russia as we speak. This has been openly stated now by no lesser person than the US Secretary of State.
NATO destroyed Libya.
Libya, Russia, same thing so I definitely see the relevance
So what does that have to do with Russia?
Did Nato threaten to use nukes? No Nato also doesnt attack, its a defense pact, so stop spreading russian propaganda.
🤡
NATO destroyed Libya and Yugoslavia, it’s as much a “defensive” pact as the Israeli “Defense” Force is. And yes, NATO does threaten with nukes, that was the entire reason why the USSR sent Cuba nukes through project Anadyr, as a response to the Jupiter missiles stationed in Turkey and the overextension of NATO into East German territory. This practice hasn’t stopped, NATO encircles countries and threatens them with obliteration if they don’t capitulate and free up their markets for western plunder.
Removed by mod
What “shit” did I spew? Which of these do you disagree with:
The west is imperialist
NATO destroyed Libya
NATO destroyed Yugoslavia
NATO placed the Jupiter missiles in Turkey and directly aimed them at the USSR, prompting the USSR to send nukes to Cuba
The IDF is an offensive force for settler-colonialism, not a defensive force
NATO over-extended into East German territory
NATO encircles countries to open them up for foreign plunder
All of these are well-established facts. In light of this, the Russian Federation is indeed under constant threat from NATO, a legacy of conflict that began in the Cold War against the Soviets and continues today against the RF. Russia’s survival as a country against NATO lies on nuclear deterrance, if they stop reminding NATO, then NATO will of course be more likely to cross red lines.
All of them are at least partially wrong.
Is russia trying to annex territory that doesnt belong to them right now or not? Yes or no answer please.
Let me know how the west is annexing other countries making them imperalist.
Nobody ever wanted or needed to attack Russia. Nato is not a country nor is it annexing territory nor is it forcing people to join it. That is straight up russian propaganda to supress the real problems within the country and to distract. You have a fucking monarch up there with more wealth than he would ever need and yet this guy decides to attack a country minding its own business.
Btw, Ukraine used to rely on nuclear deterrance but it was Russia (and not nato) attacking it after signing multiple deals that it wouldnt.
Russia is literally a colonial power. NATO is a defensive alliance of countries that don’t want to be gobbled up by the Russian empire.
Russia has no colonies. As the USSR, it was an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial force. After its dissolution, the economy imploded and is still recovering. It has had no opportunity to gain colonies like it had under the Tsar, even if they wanted to.
NATO started as an anti-communist alliance, with terrorist operations like Operation Gladio. Now, it maintains its status as the strongest alliance of imperialist countries on the planet. It’s as “defensive” as the Israeli “Defense” Force is.
Entire eastern Europe: *cough* *cough*
The SSRs were not colonies, they were a part of the broad USSR as a socialist economy.
Of course they were.
Yes, they were not colonies and were indeed parts of the broad socialist economy.
Removed by mod
😂😂😂
What do you disagree with? Specifically.
Removed by mod
Nice bit of ableism and conspiracy theorism there, a classic duo!
Name a Russian colony
Chechnya… Georgia… Azerbaijan…
You manged to name a Turkish colony there, have a gold star for trying.