What a strange world you inhabit, where Russia ending war with a strike taking out a carrier group could somehow both end war before it starts and also somehow make Venezuela into a Russian victim by making them dependent.

Like, how does any of that mechanically work?

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9618794

The US wants Venezuela’s oil fields to be privatized and the Maduro government has nationalized the oil fields to prevent them from being owned by US/mult-national corporations for profit.

As with any government that nationalizes their resources, the US will totally obliterate their country for the offense of daring to protect their interests against USA’s interests. See Libya and Iran as but two examples.

Also note that, as has been publicly state, the CIA is doing a lot of the work here and has been “authorized” to operate in Venezuela. The CIA was created by the Dulles Brothers specifically to protect the interests of US businesses around the world.

Yeah, that’s not what’s happening

The reason Russia liberates no more than tens of km2 a day is because Russia has the advantage at multiple levels and therefore can afford to move more slowly, risk fewer casualties, gather better intelligence, and maintain a sufficiently responsive position in the case of surprise.

It is not to Russia’s detriment that they move slow they are choosing it.

He expected the US had a strong and effective military and that they would use it to fight Russia. Turns out the US military is only strong enough to lose to goat herders over 20 years and not strong enough to fight Russia

Well, except for Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya.

More like a reconquista than a colonization

Reactionary forces are the capitalists, the petit bourgeois, the compradors, and the privileged.

People who accuse Marxists of being tankies are not calling anyone out on anyone’s shit. They are moralizing.

You severely missed everything presented to you. Tripled literacy rates. Housing that was 5% of salary or less. Massive life expectancy jumps in the masses.

Direct benefits to the working class.

It’s 17th in population globally, putting it in the 80th percentile of countries.

It’s a farce.

There are never only two choices. It is impossible to actually construct a real world situation where in there are only two choices. Even in an elementary school, given a test with only on question on it and it only has two answers, you can eat the test, scribble on it, punch the computer screen, walk out, etc.

Even in prison with guards pointing guns at you and putting you in a position to do either A or B you have options.

However, the concept of lesser evil is a shallow abstraction of the real world experience of pragmatism. Amongst all of your options, what course of action leads to the most desirable outcomes?

This is a real thing. We do it all the time. People in positions of grave responsibility have to do it with consequences and constraints that are absolutely gutting. Let’s say the war has already started, well, now you have to make decisions about how to avoid losing the most strategically important objectives, even if that means people dying. In fact, the strategies employed in war force decision makers into these sorts of choices as a matter of course - an opponent knows you don’t want to make certain sacrifices and will therefore create pressures that trade off those sacrifices with strategic objectives. Sometimes it’s not even that they believe you’ll give up the strategic objectives but the delay you have when choosing will give them an advantage, or the emotional and psychological toll of being put in such situations repeatedly over a long campaign can create substantial advantages.

Lesser evil is rhetorical sophistry or mildly useful thought experiments when exploring the consequences of ethical frameworks in academia.

Russia invaded Ukraine essentially on the same legal premise that was used by NATO and the US to carpet bomb Yugoslavia.

Murdering civilians is what war is all about. The Israelis are killing far and away more civilians and the globalists aren’t opposing Israel. The US refuses to even keep track of civilians killed for the most part.

So no it’s not either of those.

Also, the antagonism against Russia started many years before they launched the SMO. So it’s not actually the war that created the animosity.

Try again.

The reason it’s dumb is because DemSocs don’t actually have the ring of power to be able to cast it into the fire in the first place.

How many Bolsheviks were in positions of government? How much of the PLA was in power in China?

The sad reality is that nearly every successful socialist revolution was born through civil war.

Supa-hot-fire.gif

“I’m about to ruin this man’s whole career”

No. That’s incorrect. Democratic socialism is always and has always been an opposite to revolutionary socialism. Read some goddamned books. ALL forms of socialism are democratic, essentially by definition, but certainly by historical precedent. The only undemocratic “socialist” movements have been fascist movements using socialist aesthetics.

You don’t understand party systems, so you imagine one-party systems are undemocratic. You are incorrect. In a multi-party systems, competing interests fight for power using the electoral system. That means you would have a capitalist party and a socialist party and they would fight for votes. Why in the world would you ever expect a communist country to have multiple parties?

Instead of that, communist parties have structures within them for different factions to have sub organizations within the party. These are all people who support communism but differ on the particulars. They fight for power within the party, ensuring that the country remains communist while still enabling democracy.

It is only in fully capitalist countries that have eliminated the power of their internal communist where you have multiple capitalist parties that actually collaborate and then spread propaganda that only multi-party states are truly democratic. It’s transparent bullshit.

That’s why we say that under capitalism you can change the party but the not the policies and under communism you can change the policies but not the party. Ever notice just how democratic the West is regarding war? No matter how much the people don’t want war, no matter what party is in power, the leadership always chooses war. No matter how much we want profits to take a back seat to social issues, profit always wins. The policies of capitalism are unchangeable by the people. Is that democracy simply because you get to choose which team is oppressing you and killing foreigners?

Good question. No. It was not. Please read about it. There is plenty of writing about the political structure of the USSR, its constitutional documents, its legal and court systems, etc. It is imminently possible for you to learn about it if you’re curious

What are you talking about about? Go read a goddamned book about the political structure of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, its many voting structures, its multiple state entities, its levels of power of distribution, and THEN try to argue that 1 person had full power.

It’s ridiculous to think that your level of ignorance counts as a political perspective on history.

LOL. This is just willful ignorance at this point.

Downvoters need to stop malding and start making arguments