Media War On Russia

Anyone else notice that all private news and info channels on YouTube have an Anti-Russian bias?

Every video on Russia is inherently negative.

Attached: 1503415188017.gif (1200x1000, 1.32M)

Other urls found in this thread:

Are you new or something?

That's not the point. The point is that the whole anti-Russia campaign is thinly disguised crypto-fascism.

Kind of funny how unbiased PBS is, precisely because it's not privately owned. PBS did a documentary on Ukraine, for example, where they interviewed rebel fighters. If privately owned media did such an interview, they would splice it and cut it to make them look bad.

Same with Syria. PBS' "Frontline: Inside Assad's Syria" was much more unbiased compared to private media coverage of Syria.

Because Russia's burgeoning desire for more hegemony is interfering with America's hegemony.
Private news in America is afraid that the Russian oligarchs will take money and resources that the American oligarchs want so they disguise their concern with human rights rhetoric.

eh pbs aint that great.

Wow I guess Britain was fascist in 1812 because they spread the rumour that Napoleon was short.

the thing is, the "rebels" in Ukraine were literal neo-Nazis backed by the US, so it makes a lot of sense that PBS showed them in a good light.

Name some pros about the Russian Federation that would make a Marxist want to vote for their officials.

Pretty sure user meant the Donbass rebels.

Russia is not imperialist. Also, it's fascism if it's actually targeted inward, and in this case, it is. All the Russia scare shit is being used as a cover for censorship of anyone who is critical of the USA or capitalism. Socialists are getting purged from twitter, facebook, youtube, google searches, and so on. But go on whining about Russia you loathsome Trot, if there's any solace I'll have when Eric Trump's private militia has me on the gallows, it's that you'll be next in line after me.

Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton was ordained to be the next president and she wanted a fucking NO FLY ZONE in Syria. Meaning if she were president the US would have shot down a Russian plane by now. She was gearing up for war with Russia, and without her the media is doing that job. Trump can't just flip on it because that would just be too obvious, even for Trumpets. The oligarchs want a war with Russia. Why? Oil.

Oil companies don't want to die, but that's where they're headed given the cheapening of alternative energy and the problem of global warming. Enter Siberia. Siberia is bigger than any country on earth barring Russia, and global warming is going to thaw out its permafrost, making it ripe for drilling oil, of which it has billions of tons. The same will happen to antarctica (which is bigger than Siberia) but that land is controlled by international law so to drill there porky will pull some legal shenanigans. The world, especially its governments and militaries, runs on oil, and a lot of people are desperate for it to stay that way.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (768x482 866.97 KB, 210.4K)

No she wasn't, she wanted to sanction Russia for their direct military intervention in Ukraine and Syria but she didn't want a full-blown war with Russia. Don't be retarded.

Probably but that wouldn't have caused a full-blown NUCLEAR war with Russia. Just like the border skirmishes between Israel and Syria-Iran haven't caused a war between them and just like the border skirmishes between Pakistan and India haven't caused a war between them.

Yes Russia is fucking imperialist you tool.

I am definitely getting banned (again) for this but you people are just neocons with a minus sign. Nothing outside of your star-spangled bubble exists. You are completely ignorant of how Russia suppresses leftism and imperializes neighboring countries, particularly in the Caucasus and Central Asia, how its foreign policy directly serves Russian oligarchic capital, you only care where in relation to America it stands.

This amerigoblin idea of imperialism is imperialist thinking on itself. It has little to do with any leftist theory of imperialism except Kautsky's ultra-imperialism - which was criticized by Lenin, who realized that multiple poles of imperialism will always exist under capitalism.

A sane leftist realizes both sides as enemies. Rooting for the 'underdog' in a conflict between two imperialist forces is incredibly near-sighted and idiotic.

If there's any solace I'll have when Russian police would brutalize me, call me an American agent and slide a baggie of weed into my pocket for good measure, for attending a leftist demonstration or a labor strike…oh wait, IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING but it's ok because Russia is anti-imperialist gang.

Сталина на вас нет сука.

I know this feel man! Plenty of annoying americans telling us, Russians that putin is anti imperialist, leftist or any other idiotism


Attached: liberation.gif (350x254, 2.59M)


I know what imperialism is. It's when America does stuff, and the more stuff it does the more imperialister it is.

The marxist definition of imperialism makes Russia an imperialistic actor, so it is obviously inapplicable to discussions here.

That is true, but it is nonetheless even more true that anti Russian sentiment is currently being stirred in the US, and not because Russia is imperialist, but purely to shore up the US regime and bludgeon internal opposition, mostly from the left.

The viewers like you should've chipped in more if they didn't want to watch Koch infomercials. -PBS

That's shitty for sure. It's a mirror image of Putinist tactics, at that. It should be criticized, refuted and opposed.

At the same time you can do it while realizing that Russia is a shitty mafia state and without offering it "critical support".

When Tsarist Russia used "german spies" as an excuse to bludgeon and eliminate political opposition, the Bolsheviks didn't praise Imperial Germany or try to paint it as an innocent anti-imperialist agent.

With two capitalist dogs at each other's throats, we should only want them to annihilate each other as much as possible.

All reactionaries are to be squeezed for all anti-imperialist potential they have then discarded, I thought this was already established?

Yes they are, all developed countries necessarily and inevitably become imperialist, read Lenin. Or better yet, look at their actual foreign policy in Belarus, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.

Internal repression of socialist dissent is not fascism, by that logic literally every western country was fascist by the 19th century. Fascism is a specific ideology, not just whatever your immediate political agenda demands it to be. You are literally on the same level as “ANTIFA are the real fascists” retards.

So are you suggesting that we shouldn’t criticize an imperialist capitalist country that represses socialism, democracy, and internal dissent in general just because their imperialism opposes America’s imperialism and they pander to Soviet nostalgia?

Attached: 98D24A33-31F4-4AFE-ADD0-22C12B865316.png (600x399, 354.09K)

If that’s the case then reserve your sneaky 4D chess felatio of Russia to the public sphere, not an anonymous image board on a Cambodian finger painting forum.

Sure, if they have anti-imperialist potential. Russia is an imperialist actor itself though.


Are you saying that Lenin doesn’t argue that all capitalist countries eventually become imperialist? That’s literally the entire point of Imperialism: The Highest Stage or Capitalism. It’s in the fucking title.

Russia supports American imperialism, because Russian government literally invests into supporting american foreign debt, and Russian oligarchs store money stolen from Russian people in western banks.

It’s also a given that Russian porkies, like all porkies, invest in American oil and arms companies.

What's reslly annoying is that the western media thinks Stalin becoming a national hero "again" in Russia is a work of Putin and not just Gorbachev / cold war anti-Stalinism dying off

Attached: a84a8924743eb4086d64ee488815b5b726e61602721b6148d3ddca8bfddd3a9b.jpeg (870x864, 82.21K)

What’s also annoying is that people think that Soviet nostalgia is based on a desire to re-implement socialism and not Russian nationalism that sees the USSR as Russia’s period of greatest national prestige. There is a town where they just recently erected a statue of Nicholas II across the street from a statue of Lenin.

The more imperialism is a zero-sum game, when imperialist actors pursue an imperialist agenda, they will inevitably clash with other imperialist actors doing the same, and that's what begets anti-imperialism. Can't have another 1917 without another 1914. It's simple dialectics.

The Russian government does promote Soviet nostalgia though, quite heavily. So you are wrong. Of course they do that not out of desire to reintroduce socialism, but to legitimize their bourgeoise order as a successor of the USSR while shaping Soviet nostalgia into something that is not threatening to them ("Stalin was a red tsar! He made Russia great again! Lenin ruined everything and was a spy! What is worker ownership of the workplace?")

This this this.

I hope Grudinin will fix this.

Attached: 28577494_1770086666364395_9192698802776500681_n.jpg (552x750, 73.03K)


Yes but why should i care about a capitalistic and imperialistic country like Russia? Fuck them. They deserve to be nuked tbh.

Goddamn the dregs of revisionists need to be fucking killed.

You realize that left icon is the symbol of Russian nazies?

Yep. Also consider the caricature:

Eventually, given the conditions to grow. Not simultaneously you nitwit.

And Russia has had the time and conditions to grow. It’s a large, economically developed and militarily powerful country that has already engaged in imperialist activities among its neighbours. Even if Russia wasn’t imperialist, supporting it just means supporting a country that would eventually become imperialist, making the act of supporting it entirely pointless.

No it hasn't. It isn't imperialist, sorry your stupid Trot brain can't handle that.

Who is even talking about support? What does support mean? Support to what? Support for Russia's assistance to the Syrian government? How does your imagined eventual Russian imperialism have any bearing on whether we support that now? Nobody is even saying Russia is part of the Axis of Resistance, prominent figures like Nasrallah even explicitly say it isn't. Russia is trying to broker a deal with the Americans and communists oppose that and are fiercely critical of it. Of course we are for Russia's intervention against imperialism in Syria. But apparently that's just too complicated for you.

Russia exploits labor of the caucasian periphery, builds military bases in central asia, props up and arms regimes that are friendly to russian oligarchs, enslaves other post-soviet countries through debt, even carves out pieces of other countries, it does literally all the same fucking things America does except on a smaller scale, it is imperialist unless imperialism just means when America does things and the more things it does the more imperialister it is

It's economically backwater and militarily a mouse imitating a lion. All countries able engage in imperialist activities among neighbors so the next part of the statement is irrelevant. There are checks to Russian power, even if the media (either RT or what's spewed on here) tells you there aren't. And not all of them equal to America.

It’s literally the only European country which is still a colonial empire.

No, it's not imperialist unless it is actually engaging in parasitism, you have to prove it.

Holy fuck you are ignorant.

It’s not an intervention against imperialism, it is imperialism. Are you honestly suggesting that Russian billionaire capitalist oligarchs that control the government are spending large amounts of blood and treasure for some idealistic anti imperialist crusade? They are doing it because it suits their interests, because Syria is strategically important, because there are plans to build a pipeline there, and because Syria is a prime customer of Russian arms.

Because supporting a bourgeois “anti imperialist” state is an exercise in futility. It may destroy one empire but it will inevitably give rise to another, leaving you at square one. The only anti imperialist movements worth supporting are those that are genuinely socialist, like Cuba and Vietnam back in the 60s, because only socialist movements can be anti imperialist in principle and in the long term. All other movements are simply a power grab by local elites, for the proles it is simply exchanging one master for another.

Economically and militarily it is one of the largest players, and it shows in its activities.

First of all, that isn’t true. Second of all, any country that engages in imperialist activity of any kind is imperialist. You can’t just say that it’s not because it’s being done on a smaller scale. If fucking Kenya meddles in the politics of Uganda and Ethiopia so that Kenyan corporations can exploit the resources and population, then Kenya is an imperialist country, regardless of the size (or lack thereof) of its activities.

The Russian government and corporations meddle in the affairs of other countries, and Russian corporations exploit the labour and resources of other countries. Therefore Russia is imperialist.

What would you take as proof that Russia engages in parasitism?

Prove that Russia is engaging in a net economic extraction from some other country. Not, "Russia has troops in Syria!!!" not "they do business with other countries," prove that they are in fact parasitic, it's not an insane criteria.

shut up brainlet.

Attached: d2ecd6af62792236282a5cee729a8ea061bf9bdb.png (600x590, 326.02K)

Hi Akhination II

Modern Russia is capitalist btw

South Vietnam was a “sovereign state” fighting a defensive war initiated by North Vietnam. I guess that you don’t consider the Vietnam war to be an imperialist war either then? What about South Korea? They were a sovereign state attacked by the North in 1950, does that mean that the Korean War wasn’t an imperialist war? A local bourgeois puppet government inviting their imperial benefactor into their country does not make the intervention not imperialist.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Exactly. The Assad government is the local bourgeois puppet government while Russia is it’s imperial benefactor.

Russia and China are infinitely more imperialistic than the US or any other Western country, which is why NATO is unironically the greatest force against imperialism at the moment. Ideally, Russia and China must be balkanized and our nuclear weapons should be handed over to more civilized countries, like those in Northwestern Europe.

this has to be ironic shitposting

No, I’m a Marxist liberal interventionist in the vein of Norman Geras. Of course, the US has commited a lot of violations of international law, but the fact that American hegemony is preferable to Russian or Chinese hegemony should be obvious to all socialists as well as everyone else who values liberty and equality.

Pretty much nowhere else are the rights of workers as secured as in NATO and EU member states. Unfortunately, NATO is the closest thing to an internationalist alliance of countries commited to proletarian cause we currently have, and I wish more of my fellow Marxists would recognize this reality.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)


the absolute state

Thank you mods.

Attached: c141fdff315c95f38c73e810ed3ad13376774b8fba9a30aec711411177f7763b.jpg (311x676, 26K)

Wouldn’t it just be easier for the oil companies to convince the Americans to drop the sanctions on the Russians so that the oil companies can do business there? Starting a war seems like overkill. It’s not like Putin shyes from foreign investment like 90s Saddam.

this actually cannot be real

Attached: bait.jpg (625x626, 58.12K)

Not an argument


America forces its will on the whole EU and Middle East (and many more). America is at war with over 9 countrys. Russia and China are peaceful compared to the USA. You must have a low lQ if you need this explained to you. Only an American nationalist would be so blind to these facts.

So Ireland is imperialist? What about Hong Kong?

Attached: 1384311114369.png (625x626, 74.43K)

I would have to look into Ireland’s situation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Irish companies engaged in imperialistic activities. I know that other seemingly innocent countries do, for example Canadian mining interests are involved in all kinds of shady shit across Africa and South America.

Ireland is just a big American tax haven. It benefits from the spoils of the American Empire but is not a direct participant in imperialism imo. For instance, in 2012 there were just two Irish companies on the Fortune 500–its not a global powerhouse by any means, it doesn't even "punch above its weight" as the British are fond of saying about Bongland.

That's not to say it couldn't become a proper imperialist itself but for now its content on American spoils and leasing out Shannon to the US military.

Was Weimar Germany imperialist under Versailles before Hitler came to power? If anything, they were victims of imperialism.

I never said capitalist countries can’t be victims of imperialism. I said that capitalist countries inevitably develop imperialist tendencies, sometimes while being victims of imperialism themselves. In the case of Weimar Germany this exact thing happened when Hitler came to power.

what if i told you
but you gotta keep that between us, it's gonna blow minds otherwise…

that you can be both?

Attached: 01.png (800x600, 113.93K)

Shameful self-bump…

Attached: 14806692074890.png (900x674, 124.01K)

You know this is clearly satire but it’s unironically what twitter ☭TANKIE☭s sound like to sane people when they go on Phil Greaves tier rants about how Putin is the saviour of the working class.

That was a funny thread

Attached: leftypolice.png (957x748, 901.9K)

I was not sarcastic. The rights of workers and human rights in general are obviously more respected in NATO member states than in Russia and China, which is why NATO imperialism is preferable to Russian or Chinese imperialism. Yes, all forms of imperialism are bad, but some of them can be better than others.

There are no lesser evils when it comes to imperialism. I’ll concede that liberal democracy is probably better than Russia’s right wing populism or China’s authoritarian capitalism, but I will not make excuses for NATO or any other imperialism.

So can we all agree that life in any NATO country is better than in Russia or China, but NATO was wrong with bombings of Libya or arming terrorists in Syria?

I notice firefox's reccomended blogs very much would like me to be afraid of china and russia.

Holy shit

Why are NATO apologists even allowed to post here.

MSM decides to make Nazi propaganda now.

Attached: _20180317_030111.JPG (720x853, 139.4K)

How is that Nazi propaganda? Wasn't that literally based off an actual ML poster?

Do you not see with what features Putin and Corbyn are presented?

It's mocking them and the left.


I do like devil eyes Marx just staring into the soul of the viewer. It's as if to say "release me from this eternal abyss", which to be fair is what I think when ever I read the Telegraph.

I will admit that this war propaganda is having an effect on me, but probably not the effect, the Western media wants.

Attached: 1401411218006.webm (640x360, 3.01M)

This seems relevant…

Attached: What Tories Actually Believe.jpg (639x569, 62.32K)

why does the Corbyn caricature remind me of a spitting image puppet

Attached: landscape_uktv-spitting-image.jpg (1600x800, 116.86K)

Because that style of political caricature is a stable in British media, has been ever since Punch.

Anti Russia as in the coverage of a possible conspiracy between the oligarchs Trump and Putin
Ya they don't do anything to raise suspicions
I've not seen pro nuclear war, but I can see that developing if:
1.) The proles get suicidal self destructive after dealing with Trump
2.) Honest lines of communication don't open up
3.) Peace activists don't step up

The destruction of the American empire is far more important than your petty personal concerns about the behaviour of the russian government.

but Corbyn is a voice of reason I agree. America did kind of deserve some chaos.

Because NATO is a counterbalance to a greater evil

which is?

Chinese and Russian imperialism

Attached: face yui bird34523.jpg (500x660, 40.71K)

KYS, imperialist

Attached: catvomit.jpg (225x225, 8.28K)

The abolition of NATO will not result in the abolition of imperialism, it will only result in the empowerment of countries which respect human rights even less than the US and which pursue their geostrategic interests in an even more brutal fashion.

Also, don’t forget that NATO stopped Serbian imperialism in the 90s and currently prevents the realization of Russian imperial ambitions in the Baltics.

Attached: AlbaniaPepe.png (785x757, 44.84K)

In the 20th century, Soviet Union has killed more civilians than the US, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

Nice try, Applebaum.

Attached: vomit blood4534.gif (480x270, 2.21M)

My macabre new hobby is playing a game where I open any New Yorker/New York Times/Atlantic article and search for "Russia" before reading. I win every time.

Do you unironically think that “human rights” is just a bourgeois propaganda or something?

They aren't. Mods are just asleep.

no such thing. All states violate the rights of their people merely by existing. Liberal respect for law-and-order and "Human rights" is just a coverup to disguise the innate violence of capitalism.

Attached: bender.gif (320x240, 4.2M)

Does this apply to socialist states?

Saying liberal democracy is better than Chinese or Russian systems of government isn’t the same as NATP apologism.

Attached: B861526E-3C29-4A90-8868-9EF920A3D21A.jpeg (600x800, 72.5K)

As an anarkiddy I don't even think you can have a "socialist state"

B-but user, don’t you realize that we must support murderous and corrupt third world shitholes if they oppose America? Don’t you realize that it is our internationalist duty to overlook the fact that in these countries, workers are much more oppressed than in the West? Stop being such an imperialist!

Never noticed, I only watch good channels

OP hasn't heard of Jimmy Dore?

Russia IS a liberal democracy you fucking moron. It's only good because it is helping to dismantle American hegemony.


Are you literally retarded?

Right it’s the American bourgeoisie’s fault that the Russian bourgeoisie exploit Russian workers. Those poor Russian oligarchs was good bois they dindu nuffin!

user is partly right though. If you just look at their political system then Russia meets the common definition of a liberal democracy, it's just that the west calls them authoritarian because
a)they're extremely corrupt
b)Putin likes to step on America's toes.
If Russia was friendly with the US it would be considered a stable democracy like the equally corrupt and authoritarian Ukraine, which gets a pass because the newly installed regime is pro-west.

Great argument.

Attached: maid dragon you.png (1300x1080, 783.24K)



I’m not defending imperialism of any kind (unlike you, unironically saying that Russian imperialism is a good thing). I’m condemning the corruption and greed of the Russian bourgeoisie, who would be brutally exploiting the Russian workers regardless of America’s activity.

This may be true, but a NATO government committing naked mass murder against a foreign nation is OBJECTIVELY worse than some 'shithole' government oppressing its own workers.

This is why NATO governments are a greater enemy to the world proletariat than the Russian government can dream of aspiring to be. Russian/Chinese imperialism will be worth discussing when it actually becomes an existing threat, and this can only happen when US imperialism is totally liquidated.

Prioritizing any issue over the destruction of Western imperialism is extremely naive or deliberately reactionary.

Attached: japanese spiderman.jpg (428x294, 24.69K)

Read my comment ten more times,slowly.

Thats wrong. Stop defending NATO shitholes.

Attached: 220px-Flag_of_Turkey.svg.png (220x147, 1.93K)

Fine. Living in most of NATO countries is better than in Russia.

Okay. I will repeat again, NATO is wrong with bombing of Libya and Syria.

My good man, I know that what you are saying is out of best intentions and you have good heart, however, there is a reason why so many Russians here would prefer to live in the west and try to turn in more left wing, because they see no hope in Russia. In order to understand their anti Russian and anti Chinese position, you need to live in Russia and see what China is doing in Siberia or what kind of polluting factories they are building in Belarus.

Because younger generation believes in fairy tales about US, ignoring anything that contradicts it.
Be specific please.

Because younger generations knows that children of all the government bureaucrats and oligarchs live in the west, and invest all their money their.

News from five days ago.

P.S. Majority of Russian youth would prefer to live in social democratic countries like Germany, Norway or Finland.

I might add that Finland is top tourist attraction for Russians and they know that country rather well. Similar situation is with other EU countries.

now they speak the same

Attached: gobl.jpg (450x360 18.88 KB, 51.97K)


Attached: IMG_0887.JPG (640x916, 65.48K)

Attached: 1427398611070-1.jpg (551x600, 397.91K)

What's your guys take on Corbyn refusing to condemn Russia, with him saying that he doesn't want to be too hasty to point fingers.

it resulted in yet another argument with my crypto-Tory mother. I love her but god dammit

Somewhat respect for Corbyn for devout pacifism and being in opposition.

He's being smart, since it looks like this whole thing is a "May trying to save her bacon", especially with the

What’s so implausible about the notion that Russia’s foreign intelligence service would assasinate it’s former spy who defected to the West?

They didn't have anything to win with this.

The problem is that there's fuck all reason for them to do so.

Why are you assuming that the Russian government is capable of making rational calculations of self-interest?

epic argument

Personal my ass, the invasion of Georgia and their strict laws are objective as hell



Where would you rather be a worker, in the US or in Russia?


I would pick Russia.


please tell me your not advocating for gun restrictions.

Attached: ultimate jab.jpg (984x672, 42.07K)


been here for the past three years son
get with the shiggy

shoot the woops my fellow oldflag

No, just triggering Amerimutts.

Attached: 2954790b4b6cbf23a58c008357b19bb5a8de0e7adc13a4021a68597e92842411.jpg (1214x674, 389.22K)

You are more likely to be murdered in Russia than in the US.

Secular Talk is mostly on the Russia side. If only because Kyle is the kind of liberal who doesn't actually care about things beyond healthcare.

Attached: 766c686062d8447c0dd9324e9530d99fb7d4cc010f64cd40de9045c23bf742e2_1.jpg (1080x2555, 306.67K)

Attached: 1510026912606.jpg (971x565, 141.16K)

what site is that

Oh it's just a MS paint template. Looks like I'm the brainlet.

is the right thread for “muh russia”, cringe?

Attached: 0B5F5988-F27E-4FEA-802B-EA839E932EFA.jpeg (960x886 75.73 KB, 426.08K)


Reminded me of this.

Attached: Fbi_f5df2d_6521658.jpg (524x445, 56.75K)

There's nothing wrong with being against imperialism, although what I would fix in that chart is giving China some more opposition by giving favor to Tibet and Japan. If it's a question of China vs. the USA, then it should rather be that the two devils cancel each other out.

This is so perfect thank you.

Takes like this are really dumb. You're assuming that our only choice is to support the best available state. This is always a losing choice since the most powerful states are very imperialist. Therefore it is easy to see that supporting a balance of power could be preferable to domination. After all, the Europeans pursued the balance of power for hundreds of years, and especially 1815-1914. So this whole spiel about "choose now, one country or the other?" is stupid, since it's not clear that a strategy has to be based on picking one horse.

Next, let's point out that the US is so nice precisely because it dicks over the rest of the world. Talking about how shitty other countries are is just victim blaming- Western Europe and the US just dicked over everyone. The other industrialized countries are their settler colonies and military protectorates they helped industrialize. So haha Russia is shitty means precisely dick about whether the US is better since the US fucked other countries over to make itself nicer (it's still shit btw).

The paranoia about Chinese and Russian imperialism is not entirely unfounded, but American nationalism and imperialism can never offer a defense. It's like saying "Those guys wanna kill you, so you'd better shoot yourself in the head to stop them."

The only way to stop Russian/Chinese imperialism is with communism or some improvement on it. That's because the major failing the US has is its own hypocrisy. Westerners love to shout about muh whataboutism but the fact is racism and imperialism from the West has always been used by outsiders to discredit the West because its behavior is discrediting. There must be real accountability for the world's people to think US leadership is any better than Russia/China.

This is your brain on clintonism

People believe this shit?

Have a link ?


the people there were born in the SU

Attached: 1521662346637.jpg (750x924, 105.53K)

Gotta love this take.

also I fucking wish

What's "imperialism" to you exactly?


It cuts both ways, I've noticed over the past few weeks that the Russian media I've been watching along with western ones and they have both been ramping up the rhetoric.
War seem inevitable, it all seems too close to 1914.

Is this NazBol gang?

Imperialism is the highest point of capitalist development, where capitalist governments and financial monopolies need to expand profits by exploiting the markets and the labor power of economic periphery.

It is not a zero-sum game, and one can clearly see that Russia is complicit in this. Central Asian countries live off exporting slave labor to Russian sweatshops. Russian foreign policy is driven entirely by the interests of its petrol cartels, and their economic might is used to bludgeon underdeveloped countried such as Ukraine and Belarus into submission. Russian capital exports itself into the CIS, into Asia and the Middle East.

But here on leftypol imperialism was warped into this Duginite with Kautsky characteristics abomination where only one imperialist can exist at a time, and the more Western you are, the more imperialister you are. Lenin explicitly refuted this, yet most of this board would unironically "critically support" Hitler or Tsar Nicholas because their imperialism wasn't as powerful as the British one, and as such didn't exist I guess.

Yes unfortunately

Attached: CB81C8BB-00D2-46CE-BC17-E66E3253A006.jpeg (686x457, 39.09K)

Global hegemonic power was impossible in Lenin's time. If it were he would undoubtedly agree that the destruction of THE imperialist power's abilities to reproduce its existence trump resistance to all other competing imperialist powers. Deal with it.

Attached: face aoba disgust34541.png (262x274, 99.01K)


Attached: 1452531947365.jpg (600x837, 147.27K)

A global hegemonic power doesn't exist now either. Russia and the US are on the cusp of a new imperialistic war and China is also gearing up for one while Europe is trade warring with Trump right now.

Lenin's time had something of a hegemon - the British Empire. I honestly find it up in the air whether Britain in 1914 or the US now are/were more hegemonic. Yet Lenin did not call upon communists to critically support Kaiser Willy in his struggle, weirdly enough.

The British Empire didn't have the ability to obliterate any target on earth with little to no risk to themselves, nor did they have nukes at the time. The US is a world historic hegemon, an order of magnitude beyond any empire that's ever existed.

That ability is also shared by Russia and China.


Nice pin.

America can send special forces, cruise missiles, air strikes, drones, you name it, anywhere on earth in a matter of hours. China and Russia are well aware of their inferiority.

Russia has ICBMs, an aircraft carrier, nuclear subs, cruise missiles, special forces, and drones. China also has them, perhaps to a lesser extent. America has better quantity and quality (though Russia is stepping on its toes, especially with its new cruise missiles), but all three are capable of power projection and global strikes.

Oh wow one carrier.

Attached: laughing dc whores12312.png (540x641, 266.44K)

Yeah because the russian military doctrine is different and focuses on countering air superiority over establishing it.

Russia can still deliver troops overseas by ship or plane in the matter of hours, while striking anywhere on the planet with missiles, etc. Precisely what it is doing in Syria right now.

Russia is limited by the total superiority of their opponents in NATO. They can operate at the edges of acceptable intervention with "domestic imperialism" like the Crimea annexation and penny ante stuff like Syria, just look at how selective they are about targets.
America is a hegemony because their naval superiority is unchallenged. They can project power just like the Royal Navy could in the 19th century but to a much higher degree.

Russia isn't stuck in the nineties anymore. It can fight and likely win a ground war against NATO in Europe, or reduce the US to nuclear ash. American naval superiority isn't stopping Russia from operating its carrier and a large chunk of the navy in Syria right now. Also imperialism against former Soviet countries is not less imperialistic because it's smaller in scale. Crimea and Ossetia were imperialistic acts. Countries like Kyrgyzstan deriving something like 2/3 of their GDP from exporting slave labor to Russian sweatshops is imperialism of Russian capitalists.

I'm not denying the existence of Russian or Chinese imperialism. They exist alongside American imperialism just as French and German imperialism coexisted with British imperialism in the 19thecentury. My point is that America has achieved what they call full spectrum dominance, and all other militaries are wholly inferior in their capabilities. You might say it's a myth but until they're challenged militarily their opponents have to respect it.

I think Russia can challenge the US militarily. Maybe not defeat it utterly, but capable of putting up a fight, like Russia against the Central Powers in WW1. But we won't know that for sure until WW3 starts, and then we'll be dead.