You do realise that we can see that you side with the most prolific invader in the world and repeat racist propaganda against their designated enemies, right?

Show.

defensive military alliance

Yeah really defensive, the best defense is the attack.

I must’ve forgot the NATO invasion of Crimea in 2014

Not sure what you are even trying to imply here, considering that Russia’s actions in Crimea (a part of Ukraine that tried to secede from Ukraine before, and the population of which overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia, according to studies conducted by NATO) came after and as a response to NATO’s aggression (including NATO doing a coup against the Ukrainian government - which you are completely fine with).

If you were trying to claim that the invaders of Iraq (at least twice), Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Palestine, and many other places are not the most prolific invaders in the world, then you were just being extremely silly.

Wasn’t there this whole story of NATO stripping the voting rights of Crimean folks who wanted to join Russia just before the impromptu post-hoc referendum to justify that invasion?

Again, not sure what you are trying to imply, considering that the population of Crimea was very anti-NATO and did try to secede from Ukraine as early as 1990s, and NATO’s studies also concluded that the population of Crimea wanted to join Russia.
But you don’t think that Crimea deserves self-determination, do you?

I must’ve also forgot about the NATO invasion of Georgia in 2008, darn!

You mean when Georgia attacked South Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia? Do tell how that situation should have been handled.

Great question! Now do the same for the Baltics or Sweden.

You didn’t answer the question.
Also, not sure what I should be doing for the nazi chihuahuas that are literally a part of the most prolific invader in the world (and literally organise parades in honour of SS troops).

You’ll be surprised how nervous smaller countries get when one of the strongest armies in the world regularly executes larger and larger maneuvers at their borders and in their airspace.

Well, they should probably stop invading everywhere, then, and pay reparations to the people of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine, and many other places.
Really bizarre to imply that they are some innocent victims of “one of the strongest armies in the world” when they are a part of the polity with the most expensive and vile military in the world.
Also bizarre to pretend as if they couldn’t, for example, ally with Russia if they needed protection from somebody. There was literally nothing preventing that (other than their greed and racism).

They might even think about joining a defensive military alliance.

It’s cute how you pretend that the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, the genocidaires of Palestine are a “defensive alliance”.
NATO leadership itself admits that it’s just there to do whatever the US tells them to do.

If Russia doesn’t want that, then it was not the brightest move to double down and invade Ukraine.

NATO leadership has nobody but itself to blame for pushing for war with Russia (by their own admission) and then being beaten.

But it’s bankrolling the addression. I guess Ukraine needs every target it can find in a world where Europe buys russian oil and gas for more eurodollars than what they use to support Ukraines effort.

All this is saying is that it’s fine for Ukraine to cause world food shortages and target anything in Russia including civilian infrastructure.

At the same time the world needs to cut off the United States but won’t do that either. Even though they won’t it doesn’t give others the justification to bomb food sources. Well unless they are Israel

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Do you ever read anything? Because you are obsessed with tankies and Hexbear to the point of being ridiculous and annoying.

All you come across as is pro-fascist and pro-slavery because Tibet suffered genuine slavery before CPC came in.

Just FYI, the Dalai Lama is a pedophile mentioned many times in the Epstein files.

The re-education: “So yeah, it was actually bad of the theocracy to enslave you in literal chains, rape, torture and mutilate you for fun. The poverty and abuse you experienced was not a divine punishment for your sins in past lives like the monks told you, it was inflicted on you by a class-based system of exploitation. You have value in this life comrade, not just the next. Here are some shoes.”

We went back on promises and treats and it’s their fault!!

Genuinely baffled by what you could even be talking about here. Are you just free-associating?

Anyway, it’s always interesting how dronies talk about feudal Tibet the way Confederate flag guys talk about the Antebellum South:

It was such a charming traditional society where everything was just better! There was harmony, and everyone got along and everything Just Worked. But then the big commie government came along and tyrannically enforced their woke shit about “rights for serfs” and “girls learning to read”. We treated our nantsam like family, they were happy as slaves!

there’s no group which perceives the abusive dynamics of this civilization with a greater degree of intellectual clarity as a whole.

…except for anarcho-communists who actually know what they’re talking about.

I don’t disagree with this as a whole–Marxists are pretty much dead on with most of their analysis and see the world a hell of a lot more clearly than people still indoctrinated by capitalism. The problem is that Marxists-Leninists don’t go far enough when they diagnose the problems with capitalist society. They think it’s enough that power structures are seized by the proletariat and set up to align with their interests, as they believe (based on their analysis of how societies work) this will inherently cause the power structures to wither away over time. But that’s not how power works. You can’t fully reduce it down to class conflict.

When a Marxist says “the history of societies is the history of class struggle”, imo there are two ways to read it: (a) Class and class struggle has made up the core of all societies’ structure and general existence for all history; or (b) There is nothing else to societies’ structure or general existence that is not reducible to class and class struggle

I agree with (a). It’s supported by history and evidence. (b) inherently can’t be because it presupposes itself.

From my own understanding of history, I think that a strictly ML understanding of how societies work misses a vitally important aspect of the role power plays. I could be wrong about that! But I’ve yet to see a ML explanation of why it’s necessarily wrong. And I think the reason for that it because ML theory presupposes itself. It wants to say (b). And in that sense, I think it’s actually a wildly un-humble framework: not only does it make the bold claim that all of history is just class, it forms the basis for governments that force this restrictive historical understanding on people and dismiss any other framework as liberal or reactionary.

As the article claims about MLs, there are plenty of anarchists who don’t know what they’re talking about–who have a really shallow understanding of power or are secretly just liberals. But anarcho-communism is thus far the only framework I’ve found that addresses all of the historical dynamics and structures identified by Marx and Marxists while still being humble enough to admit that it doesn’t necessarily hold all the right answers and that it’s not the only valid framework out there.

Is it? Or are y’all just so absorbed in your faux-scientific application of context-dependent dynamics to every aspect of how you think the world works that you’ve forgotten basic ideas like “people tend to want to hold onto power” and “people in power see threats to power as threats on their lives and will therefore do all they can to protect it”?

Excuses are great, still breaks a treaty.

That sort of thing has a real cost in geopolitics.

So they didn’t invade? You can call them Nazis all you like but let’s live in reality.