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 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.
What no reading theory does to a mf. Supporting Ukrainian fascists and spouting the same foreign policy as western governments. You libs only understand critical support when it’s Joe Biden
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.
What no reading theory does to a mf. Supporting Ukrainian fascists and spouting the same foreign policy as western governments. You libs only understand critical support when it’s Joe Biden