Yes, liberals tend to define the entire scope of political economy to a narrow, capitalist viewpoint. That doesn’t make it correct. A huge range of viewpoints narrowly occupies the “radical” portion, while an absolute mountain of space comparatively is given to subdivisions of capitalism. It’s a deeply silly graph.

It has something to do with the calculus behind the final decision, but not why it happened in the first place. You’re free to reread my comments and JAQ off.

It’s pretty simple, I explained how and why Russia invaded Ukraine, and NATO’s role. You never responded to that, and instead said Russia invaded Ukraine because it can only “bully” non-NATO countries. There’s no materialism in your explanation, no underlying economic reasoning, just pure “Russia invaded Ukraine because Russians are evil” nonsense.

You’ve also been vaguely suggesting that western imperialism is a good thing, so that chauvanism tracks. Russia in your eyes is a “bullying country” and NATO in your eyes is an “anti-bully alliance,” which holds no actual water.

Nah, you know exactly what you’re doing.

It only makes sense if your conclusion is that, genetically, Russians just love attacking people. If you ignore the real, materialist explanation for events and substitute it with a deliberate refusal to acknowledge the actual causes, then you’re only left with racism. Earlier, your only reason was “bullying,” so if you really do believe it’s a genetic thing then that checks out.

I’d love you to prove me wrong about that, though.

Because it doesn’t matter. Russia hasn’t attacked NATO countries, sure. Unless you’re saying western imperialism is a good thing, and that it was correct to encircle and reject Russia’s attempts to join NATO. You’re JAQing off.

So the underlying, material reason for why you think Russia invaded Ukraine, was because they wanted to “bully” Ukraine? And that NATO is just an international “anti-bullying” alliance? No, lmao.

NATO is an alliance of imperialist nations. They band together, agreeing to each exploit their own corner. The biggest players are the US Empire, as well as the former hegemons Germany, the UK, and France. The other NATO members play along so that they can ride along on this system of monopoly capitalism expropriating vast wealth from South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and more. If countries go against NATO desires economically, they get bombed, like Yugoslavia, Libya, etc.

NATO promised Gorbachev that they wouldn’t expand eastward, decades ago. This is because originally, NATO was an anti-communist alliance. However, with the fall of the USSR, the west needed a new enemy, so they stuck with Russia even after Russia tried to join NATO. With NATO building up in Ukraine, following the Euromaidan coup of 2014 cementing the Ukrainian Nationalists as the leaders of Ukraine, and their relentless shelling of the donbass region, Russia invaded as it didn’t feel like it wanted a belligerent neighbor, and decided to take pre-emptive action.

The entire invasion never would have happened without NATO.

Why do you think Russia invaded Ukraine? Like, what is their primary goal. The impetus that drove them to approve the invasion.

Secondly, what do you think the functioning role of NATO is?

In what way is it untrue? It’s a bit simplified, but I wouldn’t really consider many western right-wingers to be anti-NATO nor any leftists pro-NATO.

No, they aren’t. Liberalism is the ideological superstructure of capitalism, while leftists support socialism of various fashions. The driving distinction between right and left is retaining the current system, or progressing onwards to the next.

Nothing I said was wrong, nor does that make it “Russian propaganda.” The RF has been clear, they oppose NATO encirclement. Gorbachev was promised decades ago that NATO wouldn’t expand eastward, yet it has over the decades. NATO is used primarily as a threat towards countries that don’t let the west economically dominate them, be it the USSR to Iran to Libya to Yugoslavia to the modern Russian Federation.

Joining NATO is indeed voluntary, yes. Russia even tried to join it a couple decades ago, and was denied. Russia was barred entry from the imperialist alliance, as if they were allowed in, NATO could not be used as a threat against them to force them to open up their economy more. The ex-soviet now-NATO states faced immense economic crisis and right-wing takeover due to the chaos that ensued when socialism was ended and the USSR dissolved, making them very western-friendly.

No, I’m not a Trump supporter, I’m a communist. I strongly oppose western imperialism, and based on the evidence we have, there’s no proof that Russia intends on taking on all of Europe. This is just scaremongering to fuel the millitary industrial complex and justify the perpetuation of NATO even after the collapse of the USSR, which it was formed to fight.

Either Russia is too weak to take Ukraine and thus NATO isn’t even necessary, or it’s strong enough but uninterested in total war and is happy with its level of involvement. The former means NATO isn’t even needed as Russia would be too weak, the latter means NATO isn’t needed as Russia has no plans to expand, nor does it have any economic basis for it.

I think it’s very telling that you can’t actually dispute any of my points, you just call me Russian and a Trump supporter for stating the standard leftist line on NATO and the Russo-Ukrainian War.

I think you’re confused, liberals aren’t left. The commenter you are replying to is complaining about liberals, ie “moderate” right wingers, failing to understand far-right wingers.

Dunno, I live in the US. Surely you can look it up, no? Nice 2 month old, 1 comment account, by the way.

There’s no evidence of this, though. Scaremongering about Russia taking Paris and whatnot has no economic backing. Russia has been clear about why it invaded Ukraine, it wants to demillitarize it as it was cozying up to NATO, and NATO has been encircling Russia for decades. If NATO didn’t exist, there would be no reason for the Russo-Ukrainian war to begin with, as Russia doesn’t stand to gain much, if anything, economically.

There was intense conflict along ethnic lines on both sides. NATO didn’t intervene to “stop a genocide,” it bombed hundreds of state-owned factories and murdered over 2000 civilians (including 300 Albanians, which NATO claimed to be “protecting”). The real drive was to destroy a nation that dared to be a part of the Non-Aligned Movement, and make them subservient to western interests, opened up for foreign plundering.

The ethnic violence was horrible, but NATO didn’t really fix it, it took advantage of it as a reason to get involved and achieve the aims of western powers economically.

The right is pro-NATO, as NATO is the main millitant arm propping up western imperialism, and the left is anti-NATO for the same reasons. There’s no “alt-left,” lol.

The USSR was socialist, governed by a communist party. The Nordic model is capitalist, as it is dominated by private ownership of large firms and key industries, and relies on imperialism to function. I suggest you do more research on these subjects.

This is nonsense. It’s neither historically accurate nor logically accurate, in the USSR for example wealth disparity was dramatically minimized. Please, open a book sometime.

The US does not have a unique set of physics that only it applies to. We have a wealth of historical experience proving the ineffectiveness of entryism, even in the US. People have tried this, it doesn’t work, and even if it did miraculously work we would have a worse party than if we put all of that effort into building up PSL.

Yes, the original point was “gays bad.” Like I said, all of the points range from awful to chauvanistic at best.