cm0002

I have this guy tagged as "Religious Fruitcake", of the "Masturbation is evil" and "god put women here to serve man" types

“So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause” ~Senator Padmé Amidala

Yea but that's media media, this thread is about User Generated Media

dominate any general audience English speaking online community

China, India, Africa and others will probably develop to the point of "producing as much media as the USA", but I highly doubt they'll simultaneously make a major shift to English for it

Tariffs can be good when applied in limited, researched and balanced ways. Trump's "plan" is to just apply a 60% blanket tariff, which is what's really really bad.

The day he said that "ReGULAr CAmErAs aRe ALl YoU NeEd" was the day I lost all trust in their implementation. And I'm someone who's completely ready to turn over all my driving to an autopilot lol

Yea this was the last email I got...a promise for another email....5 days ago

Listen to me...I have an idea...

Fuck yo Zip Drives, all my homies use SyQuest

"The people of Ukraine didn’t choose that path, the oligarchs did."

It’s true Ukraine has a history of oligarchic influence, but the 2014 Maidan protests were a massive, popular uprising. Ukrainians were fed up with Yanukovych’s corruption and his decision to abandon the EU agreement for closer ties with Russia. This wasn’t just oligarchs pulling strings; millions of Ukrainians demonstrated for a future that aligned with Europe, seeking more autonomy from Russia.

"Russia would be imperialist, but isn’t right now."

I would argue that Russia is acting imperialistically. The annexation of Crimea, the war in Donbas, and now the invasion of Ukraine are clear examples of Russia asserting control over its neighbors. Even if it’s not globally imperialist like the U.S., these actions align with a regional imperialism that Marxists should still oppose.

Ultimately, this isn’t about picking sides between oligarchies, but supporting the principle of self-determination for Ukraine, including resisting imperialist aggression from any direction.

Yes, Ukraine has ties with the U.S., but sovereign nations have the right to choose their alliances. Ukraine's Western integration stems from its desire for self-determination, not just U.S. influence. Russia’s aggression isn’t justified merely because Ukraine sought NATO’s support.

Bias exists everywhere, but dismissing "Western" sources wholesale, while elevating openly ideological ones, doesn’t strengthen the argument. Marxist critique should apply equally to all capitalist states, including Russia, which operates under an oligarchic system that exploits its own people. 1 2

While far-right elements in Ukraine are real, they’re a small part of the picture. Reducing Ukraine to these groups oversimplifies the conflict. Most Ukrainians are fighting for sovereignty, not fascism.

Russia’s actions are imperialist too, and as a Marxist, you should critique imperialism wherever it emerges, not just from the West.

1. NATO Expansion: The argument that NATO’s eastward expansion “provoked” Russia is often linked to Gorbachev’s 1990 talks with Western leaders. However, this promise was tied to Germany’s unification, not a blanket prohibition on expansion. And importantly eastern european countries sought NATO membership because of their historical (and justified) fears of Russian imperialism (a dynamic Marxists should understand as nations seeking sovereignty free from external dominance.)

2. Western Involvement in Ukraine: The U.S. supporting a regime change in Ukraine in 2014 is thought to be imperialism. But ignores the agency of Ukrainians, who led the Maidan protests because of already existing deep dissatisfaction with Yanukovych’s corrupt, oligarchic regime and his pivot to Russia. Supporting popular uprisings against oligarchs should align with Marxist values even if "the West" has its own interests

3. The Role of Fascism in Ukraine: Yes, Ukraine has issues with far-right groups like so many countries but exaggerating their influence as a justification for invasion serves to divert attention from Russia’s own reactionary politics. Far-right elements in Ukraine do not define the country’s political landscape, nor do they justify imperial aggression from another state. Russia has its own history of fostering right-wing authoritarianism.

4. Minsk Agreements: While the West" and Ukraine could be criticized for their handling of the Minsk agreements, Russia also violated these accords by continuing support for the separatists. Both sides share blame for the failure of Minsk, but it doesn’t make Russia’s invasion justified. Ukrainians didn’t provoke a full-scale invasion; they were defending their sovereignty.

5. NATO as a “Defensive” Alliance: Criticism of NATO’s imperialistic behavior is fair its actions in places like Libya show it isn’t 100% defensive. But in this case, NATO's expansion was driven by countries seeking security from a historically imperialist power. Ukraine wasn’t “provoking” Russia by wanting self-determination; it was trying to secure its future.

You're trying to push this "Actuall, but Ukraine DID provoke" narrative by mixing in unverified, ideologically biased material with references that are legitimate, but isolated incidents. Like linking far-right activity to justify the war conveniently ignores Russia’s (I should probably say everyone's) own far-right issues. Marxists should reject imperialism in all its forms, including Russia’s actions in Ukraine.