134
Libs: "RuSsIa MaN BaD!!"
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
134 points (67.4% liked)
Memes
57106 readers
305 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Just because Trump also breaks international law, doesn't make it better when Putin does it (and not the first time either). Yes, Russia Man Bad! ๐๐ป Orange Man Also Bad!
Nobody mentioned Trump. I am so fucking sick of liberals acting like the US wasn't constantly attacking other countries before Trump.
Joe Biden supported and enabled the genocide in Gaza, and every president before him committed invasions and war crimes. The fact that you think it's just a Trump thing and not a US empire thing reveals your geopolitical understanding to be puddle-deep. Hell, Putin was our guy. We put him there.
Liberals still deny that Biden is responsible for the genocide in Gaza
Trump is the president right now though
That is not an excuse to forgo object permanence and pretend Trump is an anomaly in any way except for how blatant he is. He's not a deviation from US policy, he's a distillation of it.
Liberals were happy to close their eyes and support genocide when it was covered by the thinnest veil of decorum
I'm just saying they might've mentioned Trump only since he is the president right now
That's fair, but I also can't know if they think Trump is an aberration and I consider it important to broaden the scope of the discussion
Trump has been president since 1846?
Russia has been doing imperialism and colonialism since forever. Otherwise there wouldn't be such significant Russian populations that are still monolingually Russian in former Soviet states.
The entire existence of the US is imperialism and colonialism. Until the 1960s the US had a policy of eradicating indigenous languages and cultures. So did Canada and Australia by the way.
Do you think imperialism in Russia stopped with the fall of the Tsar? If the Soviet Union was so anti-imperialist, why weren't surnames in member states derussified? Why weren't placenames derussified? Why didn't Russian settlers move back to the Russian homeland?
Same goes for the US and so on. At least reparations/compensation and derussification/deanglicization are necessary.
Multiculturalism good except for those orc hordes ๐คก
Nice strawman.
The USSR was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the Russian Federation inhereted no colonies of the tsarist Russian Empire because of this. There was no "soviet imperialism."
Absolutely hilarious!
Ignore the violent repression of eastern Europe, the subjugation of native populations in the south and east, the proxy wars and the sphere of influence and international power politics.
I'm having a hard time right now and you genuinely made me laugh, thank you!
If your entire understanding of the USSR came from decades of propaganda from its geopolitical enemies maybe you should look into how much of what you were taught was either interpreted in the worst way possible if not entirely made up. A lot of anti communist myths were started by the literal nazis but the west ran with them because they hate communism more than they hate mass genocide.
Thats not saying much tbf. They don't hate mass genocide at all.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It aided national liberation movements in Algeria, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Having influence internationally is not imperialism.
Interesting, it's your one and only comment in a one month old account.
Yeah, right. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm
You're posting an article written during the height of the Sino-Soviet split, upholding the PRC which attacked Vietnam and upholded Pol Pot in Cambodia, sided with the US over the USSR, and took all manner of incorrect lines as an overcorrection from Khrushchev's revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. In the same time period, the USSR was supporting revolution in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa and more.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It was in no way fascist either, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good book going over the political economy of the later soviet union.
That was awfully fast reading for something I just posted a few minutes ago. Pretty sure you only skimmed over it instead of actually reading it. Otherwise you'd actually talk about the stuff written in it.
Their first part is about Khrushchev's revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR, but they leap from ideological impurity to the false belief that the bourgeoisie controlled the USSR, when it lacked a domestic bourgeoisie. They then conflate disparity with bourgeois control, despite the fact that it was not meaningfully higher:
Then they point to having a large millitary to defend against the US Empire as evidence of imperialist intent, and point to trade as "imperialism." They then go on to use logical gymnastics to explain why socialists should support the US Empire over the USSR. You're upholding ultraleftists lacking in genuine materialist analysis and utterly confused about class struggle, who support Pol Pot's Cambodia against Vietnam and the US over the USSR, purely because you think it will help your point.
You should send the apology form more often.
That would be a bit too egotistical, haha.
Why werent surnames in Soviet states derussified then?
"Russification" was stopped by the soviets, and there was a two-fold effort to promote an internationalist "soviet" identity while preserving national identities. Derussifying surnames was not a priority, but numerous gains were made for cultural preservation.
You're also confusing culture with imperialism, which is a form of international exploitation on an economic basis typically reinforced by methods like couping, installing compradors, etc.
No it wasn't, otherwise Tajiks wouldn't still have -ov and -ova at the end of their surnames. Also see link to article written in the late 70s by an actual anti-imperialist socialist, explaining why the Soviet Union totally was imperialist. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm
As explained earlier, your supposed "anti-imperialist socialists" were upholding Pol Pot in Cambodia against Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR, while the USSR was supporting Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba, Algeria, and more. The groups siding with China in the Sino-Soviet split took all manner of incorrect lines as an overcorrection from Khrushchev's revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. In the same time period, the USSR was supporting revolution in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa and more.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It was in no way fascist either, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good book going over the political economy of the later soviet union.
Hey, why did you leave this comment out when running to MeanwhileOnGrad? Didn't want to admit that you think Pol Pot defenders are "real socialists?"
Well lets see the why shall we.
Russia: Engaged in a military operation because of ever encroaching US imperialism via NATO and installing a Nazi puppet government against the wishes of the Ukrainian people as is the norm and attempting to liberate them
US/Orange man; oil and stopped those EvIl CoMmiEs
Oh shit, I forgot I'm posting to a Russian propaganda board ๐ my bad, forget it happened. And please don't report me to GRU.
Cope
Why is attacking the outer reaches of Ukraine then, when NATO and US imperialism are the problem? Also how is the government nazi with two Jews in it's cabinet of ministers? You know, the central part of Nazism is the antisemitism. Pretty weak excuses for an invasion.
How can America be racist when they had a Black President?
Because those outer reaches are the regions that asked them for help when Ukraine spent 8 years slaughtering them for being too ethnically Russian
And Russia finally came to help them in 2021 and not amy sooner.
Yeah, they were hoping to reach a diplomatic solution but the Ukranian nazi government wouldn't stop breaking treaties. Your point?
Typical lib selective memory. Ukraine has been attempting drone swarms into Moscow targeting civilians for half a year at least, just recently struck at Putin's houses to attempt a decapitation strike.
Oreshnik is a good reminder that if they really wanna throw away conventions of war, they don't have a single way to intercept what would come back to them. Even then, the targets were completely legitimate and civilian casualties minimal (despite Ukraine regularly setting up bases in civilian centers, which is a flagrant war crime)
Regarding your edit: Obama was the president of the most racist country on earth ffs. There were plenty of Jewish SS members. Y'all have had it explained to you for ages and you turn around and say it again verbatim next time because you're not interested in learning, you're just cheering for your team and it makes me not at all surprised that y'all choose the guys in Nazi garb with Nazi insignias saying they're going to do Nazi stuff first chance they get.
Are you saying the 3 year war is in retaliation for drone strikes within the past year?
It must be hard going through life being this intentionally obtuse