1
Dispatch → Factbook → Politics
by 
The 圣公宗的毛思想人民共和国 of The United Kindom under Socialist Rule.
.
200 reads.
What is Russia and Putin to Communists?
Ukraine's Coup, Putin's Motives and Russia's Significance
Mongol Successors, True Authoritarianism, and MCU Psychosis
Matthew,
The United Kindom under Socialist Rule 
We all know the KPRF are behind the Russian government on most policies, if not suggesting them earlier or in more radical or harsher forms. This is not to say they are completely aligned, Putin has criticised the Bolsheviks and Soviet Communists, but Putin himself represents no particular interest. He represents no intelligible class, or even state of affairs. He represents the bare minimum of Russian sovereignty under the given conditions, and thus does the bare minimum of what the Communist Party has on its programme. But circumstances of a radical break with the West create a powerful vacuum, one that Communists are sure to possess a great role in filling with their alternative and illiberal views about economic development of the independent Russia.
The End of Ukrainian Sovereignty, Constitution and Border Claims
Following the US-backed coup in 2014, the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics declared their independence the moment they saw swastikas, veneration of Nazi collaborators such as Bandera, tearing down WW2 monuments and banning the Russian language from being spoken in the East of the country. The Communist Party in Russia immediately advocated intervention in 2014, but Putin refused, insisting upon a diplomatic settlement and insisted upon the Minsk accords, which sought Ukraine to be at peace and neutral. Eastern areas of Ukraine were demilitarised on grounds of receiving autonomy, and this would block Ukraine from joining NATO. Putin refused to recognise the two republics and kept insisting upon these Minsk accords, but the ceasefire never materialised, and harassment of Russian speakers living in the Republics continued including shelling, cutting their water, power and natural gas supplies.
When did this war begin? Well there has been a conflict in the Ukraine for eight years before this stage, although the Kiev government refused to call it a war because they wanted to have IMF loans, which you cannot receive at war. But this war began after the 2014 coup that took place on the back of Euromaidan. At that time, the legitimate government of the Ukraine had refused membership of the European Union as they had been offered an unfair deal requiring the infliction of neoliberal policies which would have hurt them much more than opening up trade partnerships with Russia. The US began to back the pro-EU movement against the Ukrainian government that was becoming increasingly friendly with Russia. US politicians began working with US front agencies on the ground such as the NED, and Victoria Nuland even boasted about funnelling $5 billion into the Ukraine to hijack the protest, break out violence (similar to the colour revolution overturning the 2004 elections), lead a coup upon the democratically elected government of Yanukovich, directly after which a western-aligned government was installed with ties to what have now become the 80+ far-right militias. The Constitution was overthrown in a coup, the Ukrainian president was overthrown in an illegal coup, so the Constituion, and the borders it proclaimed was in the air and out of the window. The people of the Donbass, who had overwhelmingly voted for Yanukovich saw their president deposed, and as such lost all confidence or regard for the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state and borders as the contract guaranteeing them had been voided. There was no legal impeachment of Yanukovich, it did not meet the legal qualifications of the Ukrainian constitution, Article 11, requiring 338 were only 328 votes, failing to meet 3/4. When there's a coup, that violates the sovereignty of a nation. The sovereignty of a state must be proven to the people living in it. That's grounded by the Constitution. In the Ukraine, there was a coup which overthrew the Constitution, meaning the people there no longer have to recognise it. The people in the Donbass had the right to declare their own state because their Constitution was violated, the president they voted for was unconstitutionally deposed, so the people in the Eastern part decided to reject the Maidan and held a referendum to establish their own state on the basis of their own reality as a people. The peoples of Donestk and Lugansk took it upon themselves to have votes to recognise their independence, which was not granted by Russia or Ukraine or Western states at the time, although Putin said he respected the legality of the outcome of the elections but urged compliance with the Minsk Accords up until February 2022. Asymmetrical warfare was waged against the Donbass, in the three years preceding Russia's entry over 15000 people died, and according to the UN, 81.4% of civilian casualties were on the Donbass side. There were over 8000 violations of the ceasefire committed by Ukraine in the week before 24th February 2022 and further plans to ramp up the attacks.
It took eight years for Putin to finally begrudgingly recognise the DPR and LPR, knowing what it would mean, but he only did so after everything else failed and the civil war was escalating. By January 2022, the Kiev government made it clear they had no intention to implement the Minsk Accords, saying they had to sign it at gunpoint. Finally, Ukraine's continued attacks aginst the people of the Donbass, amounting more or less to genocide, the constant shelling of civilian infrastructure and daily terrorism experienced by the people of the Donbass at the hands of the Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov battalion, Russia decided to finally recognise the People's Republics to stop the escalation of the violence, which the Communists had been advocating they do from the beginning. When those Republics became sovereign in Russia's eyes, and they continued to be shelled and attacked, then that was an act of aggression on the Kiev government's behalf on a sovereign entity, which Russia had a right to defend. Russian Communists saw it like this since 2014, therefore, yes, they are indeed critical of Putin but it's actually because they perceive him as not being anti-Western enough, and as making too many concession to the globalist elite. They think he should have done what he is now doing in Ukraine much sooner, actually.
The Notion of Russia as an Imperial Power
There is no indigenous Russian capitalist system - the extent to which Russia is tied to capitalism is just the extent to which she is tied to globalist monopoly capital and more specifically global financial institutions. Russian sovereignty is the extent to which she represents an alternate polarity, implying of course an uncertain future. Putin’s nationalisation of the energy industry was the first step in establishing this new polarity. Putin may not be a Communist but to have any political standing in Russia requires advocating for such sovereignty which is necessarily adversarial to any capitalism that still exists.
The idea that Russia, upon the fall of the Soviet Union, has returned to its pre-Communist past and is now some imperial power, is pretty naive. Soviet Communism has made irreversible contributions to the contemporary of Russian civilisation, especially concerning the material infrastructural and economic foundation of the nation. The national identity comes from what was rediscovered by Stalin after the Great Patriotic War, which was an older, multi-ethnic civilisation prior to Peter the Great’s westernising reforms which gave way to a false "Russian nationalism" of a Germanised ruling elite.
All Russian conservatism, Putin included, thus takes the Soviet contribution to Russian civilisation and national identity as its first premise. Russian ethno-nationalism, however is a pro-Western and liberal phenomena, which is firmly aligned against the current popular front government, composed of both United Russia and the KPRF. This is why Putin and United Russia have a tendency to align, with KPRF being the more radical of the two. In no way can it be said that Russia has returned to its Tsarist past, with Putin as the new monarch or something. During the days of the Romanov dynasty, Russia continually found herself in debt to foreign banks, and French banks in particular during the 20th century. It was not a sovereign state, it was an intermediary state of the international bourgeoisie whose economic interests were enforced through the repressive state apparatus of the gangster Russian autocracy. The circumstances Russia now finds itself in are entirely unique. Russia is no longer socialist in the Soviet sense, but neither has it returned to the pre-socialist past. It is not simply a ‘capitalist’ state, anymore than China is.
Capitalism itself, globally, does not exist, outside of the centre of financial capitalism. It's a specific Anglo-Saxon empire which is the centre of capitalism. It exists in an institutional form (World Bank, IMF), which is a geopolitical relation now, not a relation to production. The only indigenous Russian institutions are nationalised and developmentalist. Finance capital in Russia is incredibly underdeveloped. With financial assets per adult less than half that of Brasil, nearly 1/10th of Chile, and a banking sector almost entirely made up of state-controlled banks that do limited international lending, Russia does not export capital. It exports commodities and resources.
Russia was never accepted into Western hegemony even after the fall of the Soviet Union. The country and people were exploited, its wealth stolen and its dignity left to burn in flames. It just reveals how NATO was not ideologically based at all, but rooted in a Western cultural, social and ethnic prejudice towards the East, and that the professed 'anti-communism' is most, if not all the time racism and imperialism in disguise. It was never ideology that turned the West against Russia, but the possibility of them becoming strong. The empire won't accept anything but total submission. It was only about keeping the leash over Europe and Asia, and by proxy, the world. So even after the collapse of the USSR they are still antagonising. Putin is hesitantly fighting this war as he is without option, just to survive. Diplomacy was exhausted and he had little other choice.
Russia, not even her oligarchs, stand to gain anything economically for launching a war in the Ukraine, which is why they stalled for eight years, which perhaps speaks to the oligarch's greater sway over Putin than Zyuganov. But clearly Putin represents a sovereignty apart from the will of the oligarchs as if he were under there control he would not be able to launch the war at all in the first place and would have just kept selling the country out for years to come. What was Russia before Putin's nationalisations? It was like all the former Soviet states, broken promises, falling health care, industrial decline, kinship ties replaced by hostility and all those glorious technological wonders of their day and infrastructure projects left to rot.
Putin's True Motives
As for motivations, obviously KPRF's primary interest is the liberation of the republics, not to say this isn't a factor for Putin as well, but by itself was not enough to drive him to war, or else he would have acted in 2014 as the Communist Party suggested, but instead chose the route of diplomacy for this issue of the republics, largely to their dismay as they were pleading for military action. Rather, for him the chief motivating factor is an existential threat on his border, which is still a very legitimate interest. We do not live in a world of balanced, sovereign states, but ones of security pacts, polarities and geopolitical alliances. When the security architecture defining the security of everyone becomes misbalanced in one direction, a country is then threatened. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO affects this, and decimates the security architecture of Europe. Why is it that Russia cares so much about Ukraine? Why was she not bothered by Estonia and Latvia joining NATO on her borders? Why isn't it the same kind of problem? The answer is the Volgograd gap. It is the single most important geopolitical region of Russia. If it is cut off from the Russian Federation, Russia is over. It gives Russia access to Azeri oil, and is the land bridge that guarantees Russia's access to the East. The Caspian and Black Seas are of key strategic importance for Russia, if they loose this, they are starved.
Have you ever heard of the battle of Stalingrad? Know why it is so important? When the Germans occupied Ukraine they advanced to Stalingrad. If they had succeeded in taking it, they would have been able to control the whole Volgograd gap. And if you taken that and you have conquered Russia, she is completely defenceless. Not only would she lose the Volga River, but also access to the Caspian Sea. You lose absolutely everything, it is the complete end of Russia as a state, she wouldn't survive. It is the most geostrategically vital part of the existence of the Russian state. So, if Ukraine were to join NATO, that leads Russia very venerable. She has every right to prevent that outcome, no big power would ever tolerate that threat to its existence. Do you really think the United States would tolerate Canada and Mexico joining an anti-US alliance, especially with the possibility of the placement of weapons there? In fact when the Soviet Union tried to do exactly that in Cuba, it led to the Bay of Pigs invasion. The US would not tolerate any such geostrategic threat to its existence. In the same way this is about the balance of the security architecture in Europe. That's why Russia's doing this. It's specifically about the Volgograd gap. This is precisely why Russia will not tolerate Ukraine being in NATO whereas they were willing to tolerate Estonia and Latvia. As for Finland, it is more of a problem because it poses the threat of being used as a launching board to take St. Petersburg and cut Russia off from the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea. So you must understand, Putin is not crazy, a madman, or Hitlerite with genocidal intentions, but is acting along the lines of very basic and reasonable geopolitical necessities of ensuring the security of the Russian Federation.
Security architecture is about making sure Russia's sovereignty is secure, just as Europe or America has to do the same thing. Every state is not an arbitrary individual at liberty to join whatever alliance they choose, it is an idealised fantasy to think states are independent from geopolitical security contexts. You cannot join military strategic blocs that come at the expense of the overall balance of the security architecture, it's a violation of international law. We do not exist in a vacuum, we are not all equal sovereign states free to do whatever we want regardless of geography. That's not how it works. Your security cannot come at the expense of my security, this is a norm of international relations. There are limits to sovereignty, you cannot just do whatever you feel like. You may be able to whatever in your own borders, but you cannot join military geopolitical alliances that come at the expense of another country's security. There is a reality of geopolitics. When it comes to the formation of military alliances, this extends beyond the sovereignty within a state's own territory. Countries have an obligation to be cognisant of the geopolitical, historical, cultural and civilisational realities that their own sovereignty is situated within. The OSCE etc. establishes this.
What this means is that, quite simply, Russia is invading Ukraine primarily for geopolitical reasons to address their security concerns, the narrative of denazification and the liberation of the Donbass are not necessarily disingenuous, but do make for good propaganda and motivation to gather support, when as far as Putin is concerned these are more like good secondary effects and not causes to fight a war over in their own right, which is why his more hesitant line differs from the hardline one of the Communist Party. What this entails though is one thing very clearly, Putin's intentions are not part of some evil scheme to go in to displace and genocide the local population in order to make way for Russian settlers, like the motives of Hitler. Rather this invasion, or more properly a more decisive continuation of the ongoing war, has actual geopolitical concerns behind it and is entirely a consequence of the development of the NATO/Ukraine dynamic and the situation in Ukraine since 2014. From that you can reason that Russia has strong incentives to minimize casualties because they don't want to give fuel to an Afghanistan-style insurgency right on their borders. "Denazification" as well has a pragmatic reason behind it, as the Nazis are the one funded, and by proxy controlled, by the West. Most Nazi battalions have their history in getting established with the funding of some sort of Western or comprador oligarch and then later on receiving military aid and training from NATO, so this is a lane of influence Russia wants to cut off.
Russia has openly declared that they will accept surrender for a bunch of easily-fulfilled conditions that don't include, to no surprise to anyone, geocoding the Ukrainian population. It is not what they are trying to get out of this war. The security of the Ukrainian people was never under threat from Russia. It is NATO who tipped the balance. Putin's demands for a ceasefire are simple, he is not even asking for Zelensky or his government to step down, but for demilitarisation (removal of foreign weaponry), no NATO membership at ever guaranteed and the ending of the slaughtering of civilians in Donetsk and Lugansk.
Marvel Psychosis in the West
Every discussion about this war in the West is in terms of narrative. Zelensky is Harry Potter, "Putler" is Voldemort. Honestly terrifying. The severe prospects are seen as little more than a test of the will. "Okay guys we're going to have a nuclear war, but let's stand for it". The people are not going to be with you on that one. They'll tell you you're a lunatic that belongs in a mental asylum if you say we have to destroy human civilisation for Zelensky.
At least in the Cold War there was a pragmatism between enemies and in government, when it came to something like nuclear war, we were able to say "we have different ideologies but this is the reality". But in this confrontation, reality itself has become ideological. Our politicians are in a form of psychosis with their hands looming over the red button.
Reality itself has become rhetorically filtered. When the pro-Ukraine people hear about the threat of nuclear war, they see it as a rhetorical device being used by their opponents. They don't care about the actual reality, but this marvel cinematic universe of the fantasy dreamland filter of "the good guys and the bad guys". But actual reality doesn't matter to them. Nuclear war is just a casual chat, but the concrete consequences of their stance is not considered. Just engaging in a kind of ideological polarisation purely on grounds of who is morally right and wrong. They have lost all connection to actual reality, which is just an ancillary detail. It's the principle, dialogue and reterick that matters. Well this is not a marvel movie or Harry Potter, it's actual objective reality that is not immediately reducible to their moral polarisation of it.
There is an actual objective threat of nuclear war, but you tell people we need to de-escalate and, "Oh yeah, just give Putin what he wants?!" is the response. It's madness. During the Cold War it was a bipolar world. Both vehemently disagreed with each other ideologically, both thought they had the moral highground. But when there was a threat and prospect of nuclear war, both were pragmatically aware of "you have your ideology and I have mine but the nuke stuff is very real, we both can recognise and acknowledge that."
Today, the West has become fully ideological. There is no room for any consideration of reality outside of the filter of this ideology. So when you tell people things like yes, you do need to compromise in a world of nuclear deterrents by pulling back, it is seen as a moral statement. Putin is not demanding that everyone submits to Russia politically and he must take over everyone's sovereignty or else he will push the button. The way nukes work in relation to sovereignty is a deterrent. We are crossing the boundary and limits of that deterrent because of the degree NATO has been intervening in the conflict in Ukraine. How much military equipment we are giving the Ukrainians, including the recent threat that we will give them long range missiles to hit inside Russia. We are the aggressors in that case. Even if Russia is held to be an aggressor with regards to Ukraine (which is false by the way), but as far as the powers that actually hold nukes, Russia did not commit any aggressive act towards Western nuclear powers whatsoever. We are throwing all our stuff in Ukraine to be used against Russia, so we are escalating the situation to a degree where Russia may be compelled to use low-yield nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Not to mention the possibility of an accidental strike by Russia into Poland which could be provoked through this because they're going to go right up to the Polish border. Now you bring us a situation where Article 5 gets invoked - one we are getting dangerously closer to by the day - that could be the brink of nuclear war. This is how wars escalate. The goal should be to de-escalate the war at all costs. But people "don't want to give Putin what he wants" in some rhetorical sense.
Just cut the ideology for a second and think about what's been going on for ten years. Whether the latte drinking students of the West like it or not, the people of the Donbass do not want to be part of a unified Ukrainian state, nor do the people of Crimea.As a civilisation they have rejected the laws of Ukraine guaranteed by it's Constitution ever since that Constitution was disregarded by means of an illegal coup. It's not just Putin and his will, but that of millions, it's a conflict between peoples. It's not going to be solved when you reduce the entire will of the Donbass, Crimean and Russian people to one "bad personality", one "voldemort" or "thanos", just because that narrative is simple enough to be assimilated into the Marvel-Disney poisoned brain. Putin's sentiments are not the evil wishes of one maniac, but largely shared in his country, and what used to be Eastern Ukraine, and in fact he is only significantly opposed by people advocating harsher approaches. Just because our hipsters are simpletons who want to reduce the will of an entire people to one villain doesn't mean the world should have to suffer the consequences of a thermonuclear apocalypse because graduate student urbanites are living in the MCU and cannot grasp the fact that there's a reason Putin did what he did in relation to pressure that was coming from his own people.
You actually see the Russian genocide advocates being the most honest about this - "Russia will always be the same, we need to dismantle Russia, because before it was the Soviets, now Putin, next KPRF - those people are rotten." Even they will admit the regional conflict.
Now that's a regional conflict in Donbass and Russia addressing a security concern right on its horde. It's not a global conflict, doesn't need to be a world conflict, nothing about it has to concern the "free and civilised West", but we are told that the West's involvement in this war is justified because "we have a moral responsibility". We are sacrificing reality upon the Altar of some abstract ideal of liberalism which is itself a farce that doesn't even exist. But that can only be explained when we put down the nukes first.
It's very hard for us to appreciate in the West that nuclear war is a really a prospect because we live in a mediated information sphere which we confuse for actual reality. So when Vladimir Putin makes a speech saying that this is escalating into some really hot territory where things can go wrong quick, we tend to assume it's just a rhetorical point scoring message or signal, and that he's not actually referring to something very serious and real. We are on the brink of what could be a serious conflict and the scary thing is people aren't aware of this because everything is being mediated by some kind of rhetorical talking point that seems to be not actually about the reality on the ground which is the actual subject, but what you stand for in terms of principle.
What you are getting from the pro-Ukraine camp is "Oh we don't care about your reterick Putin, if you don't want nuclear war then you shouldn't have invaded Ukraine!" It is made into a completely abstract moral position of who is in the right and who is in the wrong. But does it actually occur to them (putting aside the debate of morality, which need to be a debate, because they are wrong about that too), but since these city dwellers have porn-addled brain, living in the West, being these liberal, godless ideologists, they have a kneejerk reaction where they believe Russia is committing an immoral act by launching the SMO. But what does that have to do with the very real prospect of nuclear war? Nuclear war is not a rhetorical talking point. It's not actually a matter of principle, it's a very real thing that could actually happen.
It doesn't matter who's in the right or wrong when we are dealing with the entirety of human civilisation at stake. And these reddit-brained people have a just baffling standpoint where they say "it doesn't matter, Putin's a villain, screw him, he's a villain". Where is the ability to have any kind of pragmatic, non-ideological relationship to the world? Funnily enough it used to be claimed the Communists were ideological and the neoliberal West is just pragmatic and cold capitalists that care about getting things done, whereas we Communists were supposedly just idealistic and cared too much about ideology over reality. There's not an ounce of pragmatism in the West today. It's all ideology. And the terrifying thing is that they're not able to separate the difference between this ideological morality and actual reality.
So it's not dawning on our politicians that there could be a nuclear war. Its not registering for them. It'd still just be a matter of what ideology you have, what principles you subscribe to, what things you believe. But the thought that it is actually possible doesn't cross their mind. So now the West cannot distinguish between its subjective narrative and digital reddit or BLM, LGBT twitter cancellation crusades and any objective situation in war.
It's impossible to persuade an ideologically possessed person. They are irrational. They can operate up to a certain threshold, which is strictly based on whether you accept the correctness of their ideology. If you reject it, they see it as a stain on your character. But there is no relation or dialectic with ideology and reality. It never dawns on them that there might be a difference between them, because to the idealogue, reality has no difference outside of the ideology. People who strictly just ideological filter everything within the frame of ideology. They arrive at a point where if most people start becoming ambivalent to, or reject the ideology, they take this as an indictment on the people themselves.
On the global scale, we see this play out between nations. NATO are ideologue nations. The West thinks it has a moral highground in the case of Ukraine and Russia, that we have "liberal democracy", and the "free modern West" is the pinnacle of civilisation, which must be imposed on the entire world through NATO. This is our arrogance. And when Russia rejects this, and Russia decides to act upon its own interests and its own reality as a civilisation, the deepest we can engage with is "you're backwards, you're immoral, I hate you". So we start dehumanising the Russians because they have defied our ideological bubble in the West, so the only rational explanation for that is that they are ontologically evil, immoral people. You see this with how the most "principled, civilised moral liberals" of the West mocked the bombing of Dariya Dugina.
There is an unprecedented ideological psychosis going on in the West right now. This liberal ideology is driving us into madness, and the heart of that madness has the potential to lead to nuclear armageddon.
What is behind the West's ideological infatuation with Ukraine?
When you go to reddit, the premiere representatives of Anglo-Saxon modernity and you ask them to represent the good life, the utopia, it's always this precise depiction of the premodern, primitivist, pagan world. In Tolkien's world, the hobbits, the humans, the elves are "ooooh" living in this freedom commune, all so harmonious and peaceful, with the hobbits in the shire running around barefoot in the woods that's the endearing part like the fraternity you can get out of the KKK brotherhood. But then finally, nowadays, this is precisely how Ukraine is being depicted. Ukraine, with its endless gold pastures and sunny blue sky.
Then you go to Western leftists and ask them what's the ideal world, and its this ecological hippie world of solar power, all fluid sexuality, wholesome chungus. But something is wrong...
How is Russia depicted, especially in Ukraine? Russia's act of going into Ukraine is the act of modernity alienating the premodern lifestyle of reddit's dreams. The act that turns the world on its head, it's this cut, the interruption in this harmonious, peaceful, primitive life.
This is also why we have a crisis of masculinity in the west. We are paralysed to make any defining act out of fear of interrupting the peaceful harmonious life. We are very convinced that such an act is vain, anyone who does it is "being like Haz", they're supposedly insecure, trying to resist the tide of feminisation, which is the natural flow of things and trying to resist "social progress", etc. This is why a lot of the redditors would rather just keep their heads down, shut up, look back at their Nintendo switch, avoid confrontation and just embrace the feminisation.
They hate this idea of an arbitrary act which denies the natural flow of the cosmos. Go with the flow. Support the current thing. Let things be. This is reddit. But it's because they want to cling onto this idea of the premodern elf society. But you inevitably run into a contradiction, that this natural flow isn't natural because there are contradictions in history that push onto different modes of production (according to historical materialism).
So then you encounter different civilisations at different points in history with different ways of life, and it confronts you as an interruption in your happy harmonious flow…
Every act the postmodern subject is faced with is seen as an apocalypse. So when they do come to act at all, it is always extreme and it has to be some radical, world destroying thing. The type of act people make now is travelling overseas to join ISIS, or now, travelling to join the foreign legion in Ukraine. Or committing mass shootings and such things. Or like what Will Smith did in 2022. He engaged in a decisive act for the first time in his entire life. So now when people act they are crossing the threshold of anything they're going to be able to cope with. He cried afterwards. He engaged in an act and recovered from it by crying. That's not what a man does. When a man acts, he is not actually committing an act in defiance of nature, destiny, history. What he is doing is responding to the contradictions within history itself. So these kinds of acts are part of history and what advances it to stages with lessening and lessening contradictions, this being the movement of Communism, to the point eventually when there exists no contradiction.
Traditions are ruptures in time that somehow become parts of time. Modes of production are ruptures in history which somehow become parts of history. It's not this pagan sort of thing "everything is one continuity".
This explains a lot why there is a convergence between the post-modern Western leftists and the idea of a pre-modern fantasy world, "decolonisation, eliminate all gender differences, we're all going to become forest fairies, all differences will be eliminated and it will all just be one, continuous, jellyfish, grey goo reality". Total orgy. All differences are seen as impositions that rupture this harmonious continuity.
But this leftist fantasy is kind of similar to Tolkien's world of hobbits running around barefoot and everything is peaceful and tranquil. So now you have the symbol of the Ukraine flag. Golden fields and blue skies, it is this fantastical projection. We actually see the LGBT movement culminate in the Ukraine flag. It wants to eliminate all gender and sexual differences, and we all become jellyfish. So on the golden pasture below the blue sky, is the world of all genderfluid harmony, non-binary, all of the identities mixing together. All differences have collapsed, liberalism and freedom is the order of the day, and it's all part of this ecological and indigenous, landback, leftist fantasy. Furries are here, everyone is here holding hands, the blue sky above radiating harmony. This is not the reality of the Ukraine at all, but what leftists are projecting on it and their reason for supporting it.
So that's the Ukraine. The Ukraine against Mordor, which is Russia to the East, which is seen as interrupting this harmony. But all of the things happening in the golden fields are hypermodern phenomenon, all in fact interruptions in traditional, organic, natural life, which is based on traditional gender roles and the patriarchal society. That's the Christian order as opposed to the hippie pagan lax commune.
So that's why Russia - the more conservative, traditional, Christian society is the industrial Mordor. The West, the forces of the Anglo-Saxon elites, beginning with the bourgeoisie of the industrial revolution, and later the Nazis, from Germany's Nazis to the Ukraine's today, always found refuge in this Tolkien like pagan fantasy. That is why Azov burn Orthodox icons and set Churches ablaze. They fantasise about the harmonious, premodern world. It is very Malthusian too.
It is reminiscent of theosophy, which seeks to rediscover this lost premodern mystical knowledge. But the irony is, it was extremely modern, there was nothing traditional about it. It was merely a reflection of the customs and practices of the modern ruling class. There was nothing ancient or traditional about it whatsoever.
So why does the bourgeoisie, the representative of this act of destructive modernity, take refuge in the past, before everything went wrong? Why is Tolkien so popular in the West today? Why do we like the idea of the shire, elves and hobbits and why do we hate the industrial orcs from Mordor? Especially when our society is almost exclusively defined by the complete elimination of its old traditions. Really, our society is pure Mordor.
So why the contradiction? Dialectics reveals it; class struggle. Marx revealed that there was never a contradiction between the forces of pure tradition and pure modernity. This is why we see the forces of modernity project this false, simulated fantasy of tradition.The struggle is not between the premodern world and the modern world. Rather it is the struggle between the people and the oligarchic elite. The struggle between the workers and the idlers. The countryside vs. the cities. Technological modernity changed everything, but was not one-sided. Marx gave this back to the people. Marx revealed that the forces of modernity didn't come from the actions of one individual industrialist or mad scientist, but the contradiction the struggle produced which took the form of the modern world as we know it.
Throughout all history was the class struggle, it always has been waged. It is not simply that life was harmonious and wholesome chungus. Granted, there was a basic aspect of humanity and sociality eroded by capitalism. Comparing it to the state of religion, family, etc in former modes of production, something like feudalism looks great compared to capitalism. But we should not idealise these times, since they were all embedded in a conflict with the idle and parasitical elites and ruling classes of those eras, who at every point in history have struggled a giant the authentic aspirations of the people.
So modern life has committed two camps. Work has become completely alienated and estranged from the people in the form of the universal commodity. So now we are at the most decisive moment in the history of humanity, according to Marx. It's not between tradition and modernity. That's a false contradiction. The bourgeoise have their tradition, but the proletariat also has its tradition. How to break the Tolkien fantasy of the Ukraine and all the other stuff we are being fed? The Ukraine fantasy is a fantasy of reddit idlers. It is not Russia's special military operation which was this act that interrupted the flow of time, the flow of time has always been interrupted. As a matter of fact there is no flow of time with the Ukraine. These golden fields are a fantasy of time arrested and frozen. In Tolkien's fantasy world there's not history. Nothing ever changes, everything's always the same time. The world is created and then it's the same forever. There's different stories but no historical change. Nothing like a Mongol invasion that changes everything, no Islamic world, no Christendom, just the ahistorical pagan oneness. One pagan world of pagan fantasy.
Mediaeval high fantasy became popular in the 70s and 80s as a way of projecting this kind of past precisley at the moment that we have been severed entirely from it.
Nazi vs. Communist Dictatorship
Consider the swastika. a. It was a symbol that meant nothing to the German people! Some theosophist mystics said it was an ancient symbol of the aryans. You think a German peasant derives any meaning from the swastika? It is a pure abstraction, a pure startup of a nation from scratch. A pure vain experiment and adventure. The Communist hammer and sickle is very simple, a timeless symbol of agriculture and industry. The startup nation wants to liquidate civilisation and start everything again from scratch. You can’t startup civilisation.
And herein lies the difference between Nazi and Communist dictatorship. Nazi dictatorship does not give expression to any authentic, objective reality of the state. It resorts to an obscene, psychotic, emergency mechanism of the vampiric, liberal, democratic oligarchy, which is a crude mimicry of authentic dictatorship. Hitler’s regime in Germany was a crude mimicry of the Bolshevik dictatorship, same with Mussolini’s. A crude and obscene mimicry of the objective tradition of authoritarianism. Prussian authoritarian statecraft was only able to be inherited by the Communists. The key thing is being rooted in some basis in the people. Stalin’s dictatorship was based in the subjectivity of the Russian peasant. Hitler’s dictatorship was not based in the subjectivity of any popular strata of the German people. It was an adventure, from the top down. Same with Mussolini, and same with what is happening in the Ukraine today, these have no roots in the soil of the people. Then think of Mao, firmly planted in the roots of the Chinese peasant’s subjectivity. The Nazis only aspired to this, they have no basis in the peasant subjectivity of their respective countries.The German Conservative Revolution is combined with Marxism-Leninism, but not Nazism, but Communism is the zeitgeist of the true German tradition of political science.
So what does Russia do? Russia doesn't want power at the expense of everybody else, but they say it is authoritarian because they say they want to go a certain way without negotiation. An authoritarian will of Russia insisting upon itself as a determinate and specific pole and civilisation. Real authoritarian leaders are populist and based in the fundamental will of the people. During the Cold War, the meaning of democracy was reinvented. It no longer meant a state infused with the popular character of the masses and peasants, reflecting the broad majority of the people. The “democratic revolutions” funded by the US, such as Maidan in Ukraine are NGO colour revolution, which have at their vanguard neo-feudal rentier monopoly classes, that gain all their revenues from rent, intellectual property, salaries, speculation, etc. The only thing “democratic” about these coups is the absence of a singular popular will. So “democratic” has come to acquire this meaning of multiplicity for multiplicity’s own sake, spreading out of power. It has moved from a populist to an institutional understanding of the word. Pure diversity, pure “open society” as Soros says.
But this is not actually ruled by the actual people, or building a state that has a popular character. It is a state devoid of any singular popular will, so able to be fully controlled and beholden to the interests of the globalist and neofeudal ruling class. The fact is that it is truly the countries that have strongman figures, essentially monarchs like Putin, Xi, Assad, Kim, Khamenei, Akhundzada which are actual democracies today. Today “monarchy” is democratic, whereas “democracy” is tyrannical, oligarchic and despotic. Ukraine has a “democracy” - the rule of foreign NGOs, billionaires and institutions. But it doesn’t have a state of any popular character manifested as any singular popular will.
The Death of Bourgeois Democracy Worldwide and True Authoritarianism
We are living in socialism, worldwide, though it does not serve the people everywhere. Our global mode of production has changed. We do not live in classical bourgeois capitalism anymore. So today, the real successors of bourgeois democracy are states such as Russia and China. Bourgeois democracy has evolved, no longer exists the purely neutral negative freedoms, but now actively takes a role in the economy, even in the West. So authoritarian figures that step beyond the limits of bourgeois democracy themselves, like Putin who nationalised the Russian gas industry, are democratic. This subordinated the most important sector of the economy to the interests of the majority of the people.
Soros’ Open Society and all neoliberal “democracy” is pure negativity. It is the absence of any singular determinate will. Is pure diversity of will democracy? Is a pure multiplicity of political will democratic? No. The people are actually not the sum total of individuals, as we believe in the West. If they were, since every individual has a different opinion, then what democracy means is merely making sure one opinion is never given too much sway. But from an Eastern perspective individuals are part of a bigger collective, so democracy must necessarily imply a state that exercises the singular will of the people. This was even the original view of the founding fathers of the US with their idea of a strongman, monarchical, executive leader. To empower the executive branch, the idea was that the executive of the US would have more power than the phoney British crown. They did not like parliament, but a strong leader that represented the singular will of the people. They wanted to prevent what happened to the British monarchy to the US executive, so there would never be any equivalent to parliament. Parliamentary monarchy is not a real monarchy, but an oligarchic usurpation of monarchy. The founding fathers wanted a one party state.
Russia had her democratic revolution, but then what? You have to attend to the actual realities of your country having a specific character, your people having specific, determinate needs. That was Putin. That’s why authoritarian states are more advanced than “democratic” states. They have been through modernity and are settling into life on the other side. Authoritarianism is the 21st century - the “now what?”. Authoritarian states are not pre-democratic, but post-democratic. Putin does not have to fear a democratic revolution, because he’s a post-democratic figure. Russia is in a time after the era of democracy. She is maturing now, preserving the essence of democracy, but being no longer limited or bound by its form. Putin is not a dictator. The truth is, he doesn’t fear any sort of maidan or democratic revolution - what he does fear is KPRF, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.
The only reason Putin has criticised Soviet leaders is not because he is a Tsarist figure who wants to restore the Russian empire, it is because he is trying to suppress the popularity of the Communist Party, the largest and only significant opposition party in Russia, fully legal and integrated into the government with his party, United Russia. That’s who’s Putin’s scared of right now, the Communist Party. So if Putin criticises Lenin or the territory of the Soviet republics, like giving autonomy to the Ukraine, this is because he’s dealing with an internal conflict within the popular front democracy that is the Russian state, including both United Russia and the Communist Party. Russia is a democracy that is governed by a popular front, the KPRF is also part of this popular front and is the second largest power within it. Putin doesn’t control them, he competes with them. They are gaining more power than before, so he has criticised decisions of Lenin, etc. that have weakened Russia with respect to Ukraine to knock on them.
In this war, every single political faction within Russia is united behind Putin. There is no huge democratic movement within Russia opposing the war and declaring itself Putin’s enemy. This war is uniting the whole country, regardless is your pro-Putin or pro-Zyuganov.
We do not live in a democracy in the West, we have a deepstate beyond formal constitutional institutions, which is not elected, our mainstream media is not elected, the corporations that rule us are not elected. We don’t live in a democracy. We are democratic but Russia is not? Why? Because the people that actually rule our country are, as Putin said, men in dark suits who are completely unaccountable to the public. At least Putin is accountable to his people. The policies of Russia lie on his head. Our deepstate is not, we don’t even know who these people are. Who borders Russia? Who is the force of democracy in Eastern Europe? Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, that have Nazi veterans of the Wehrmacht and Nazi collaborators regularly paraded on the streets? Those countries that are extremely racist and repressive against civilians? Russia’s tensions with them has nothing to do with the fact that they’re “democratic”, but everything to do with the fact that they’re radically anti-Russian racists.
The “democratic” fabian socialist theory of modern geopolitics holds China, Russia etc. to be capitalist hellholes like any other state, but they additionally “lack democracy”, which is bad because democracy is a necessary part of socialism. So what they’re saying is that America, the EU and the UK are closer to “socialism”, because at least we have “democracy”. Except in reality, in Russia, the interest of the workers are not being suppressed by Putin, but in fact his popular front government gives them a greater platform. Because in a neoliberal economy, you don’t even have the means to intervene in the economy in ways that benefit workers. In Belarus, who’s defending all the workers’ unions and interests? It’s not the “democratic” US-backed NGO forces, who are extremely elitist and snobby and hostile to the “backwards homophobic” masses, it’s Lukashenko who represents the will of the people! Lukashenko, that “dictator”, right? He defends them. So we must understand, this dogwhistle word of “democracy” is not beneficial to the masses. It’s a way to repress them at the hands of the socially progressive LGBT pink haired elite who can’t bear the sight of the working classes of the world, as they sit sipping their latte in their salaried university job, those scum that are so “backwards, traditional and intolerant”! That’s what the forces of democracy think about you and your families… “Democracy” does not benefit you, it represses you.
What has happened in every country in Eastern Europe that has suffered one of these “democratic” colour revolutions at the hands of NATO? Unprecedented privatisation of the economy, giving western financial capitalists free reign to do whatever they want, and effectively establishing neofeudal colony economies. When you have the rule of tyrannical private corporations and silicone valley bigtech platforms, is that democratic? Did we elect Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates? It’s almost as bad as Jimmy Savile. I mean yes, how does a radio DJ end up carrying out policy reviews for mental health institutions? In the same vein, how does the ex-founder of Microsoft end up as an adviser to WHO and world governments of health issues (pushing contraceptives and abortion onto the third world)? These people none of us voted for have a tremendous amount of power over our lives. In a so-called “democratic” society, there is less popular accountability than ever before.
Get rid of the idea that the war in the Ukraine is a conflict between democracy and authoritarianism. America, UK, and the EU are just as authoritarian as China or Russia is, the only difference is that it is not accountable. We don’t know the authorities that control us, we don’t elect them, they don’t answer to us, they don’t give speeches to us directly, we don’t see their faces, that’s the only difference. The modern world must question the legitimacy of everything, government, gender, God, morality, the way humans eat food even; the pure negativity of Western “democracy”, consisting of nothing more than calling everything into question is part of a larger tendency of calling everything about our humanity into question as we are thrown into this radical doubt about who we are. So any attempt people make to actually take a firm position and say, “this is what we are as a people”, that is called authoritarian. The reason Russia is called authoritarian isn’t because it’s tyrannical, but it is because Russians are insisting upon the fact that they know who they are as a nation, as a Christian civilisation, as a traditional, devout, family-oriented people. They do not have, or want anything to do with, this modern positivism or empiricism where a people have no clue who they are so feel the need to follow formal institutional procedures to externally verify their identity and being.
The Open Society Foundation and its Conception of Totalitarian States
The Open Society of George Soros is inspired by Karl Popper’s “The Open Society and Its Enemies”. Popper was a philosopher of science who promoted this view of falsification. He took empiricism and positivism to its absolute limit and became a fanatic, according to whom we cannot know anything about the world without externally verifying it by some kind of institutional consensus or neutral, formal medium. According to Popper, Marxism is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable, as it did not have the breathing room to be possibly proven wrong. We couldn’t know if it’s right or wrong. For Popper, we cannot know anything about the world unless we can subject it to some kind of formal procedure. In the modern world, we have Descartes’ doubt, which states that the only thing one can know about his being, or proves he even exists is the fact of him thinking in that instant. From there, we get modernity as a whole. Popper specifically applies this politically and says that every state that pretends to know what it is and speak on behalf of the people, and on behalf of some kind of definite national, civilisational, religious, or traditional identity, is totalitarian and wrong. The only really true state according to him is a “liberal democracy” that verifies its claims through formal democratic procedures, external institutional methods, etc.
The way someone like Heidigger would respond to Popper is by saying that even before we have the ability to be certain about the world, we have a definite character and being, our knowledge of which doesn’t take the form of formal falsifiable certainty, but a more fundamental type of intuitive and phenomenal type of knowledge. A knowledge reflected in the forms of our practices, traditions and culture. Reflected in the form of the way a nation reproduces itself. Popper assumes that the only kind of knowledge we can have is the formal certain knowledge, whereas the Russian and Chinese civilisations assert that there is some form of knowledge that is unconscious, that you cannot be certain of, but that we nonetheless take for granted, and somehow make meaningful and rely upon.
The Soros view of democracy is just multiplicity, diversity, conflict and difference. The Marxist view of democracy is the historic conception of the one fist growing out of many people, a multiplicity indeed, but out of many, one. When you have a singular will that is understood as totalitarian. The only thing that prevents this “totalitarianism” is by having difference for difference’s own sake. Julius Caesar was democratic, actually represented the Roman people, extended rights to ethnic and religious minorities, and the Patricians, banging on about the sanctity of the republic, were anti-democratic, the didn’t want the people to have political representation, but pure forms and procedures to remain intact, which actually disenfranchised the majority of the Romans.
There is objectively an aspect of statehood the precedes any kind of formal, democratic legitimation.
Mongol Modernity, Land Based Civilisation States and Communist Monarchs
Chairman Mao said in On Contradiction:
"The nomadic system of Mongolia and Central Asia has been directly linked with socialism."
Socialism arises from modernity and the way in which it completely uprooted and destroyed the sociality that had been taken for granted prior. The abstraction of a common economic or social reality, some kind of common social bond that unites us, was taken for granted before modernity so the words Communism and socialism were not needed. These words specifically arise when the abstraction of sociality becomes intelligible, which is only when it is somehow uprooted, challenged, or universally alienated from individuals.
The Mongol empire laid the hidden foundations of modernity, all these successor states to the Mongols are socialist or Communist. The trauma of the Mongol invasion created the necessary abstraction from the immediate social bonds, allowing fir some kind of sociality in the abstract to become intelligible.
The Mongols brought a kind of universalism set against all local and particular realities and whose successors would form the large land-based empires. Mongol universalism is an alternative, lost form of modernity. The successor states of the Mongol empire, such as the Ottoman Empire, Tsardom of Muscovy, Yuan and Qing Dynasties, unlike the mercantile states, fall under what Marx called the Asiatic mode of production. There are no real property rights, it all belongs to the sovereign, there is an economy oriented towards communal infrastructure projects, to an extent planned for a common social purpose. These states differed from the mercantile ones in that they were based not in the abstraction of profit as the goal, but the production of concrete things (use values). Based on the production and accumulation of things, not numbers.
The difference between these and feudalism is that feudalism is particular to Europe where the sovereign recognises property rights. Early modern Russia wasn't feudal but it became so after Peter "the Great"'s Westernising reforms importing serfdom, etc. which weren't fully undone until the end of the Stalin era.
In a sense, all these empires' legacies have persisted so the states that have succeeded the land based empires embody Communism to a degree, though it is only explicit in China. The Mongol invasion abstracted all their local civilisations, peoples and forms of production from their immediate sociality and subjected them to a form of abstract universalism in the form of the Mongol state. What the Mongols introduced was the conception of a truly universal state, that is impartial to religious and ethnic differences (even if there was a guiding established one in the case of the Ottomans and Russia - in China statehood itself was the religion). Look how many races and religions live under Russia, China or the Ottomans.
Not only is the Mongol universalism comparable to European modernity, it is its lost material basis. European modernity is just the subjective articulation of the objective historical change ushered in by the Mongols.
Socialism has an objectivity, it is not based on the subjective and voluntary implementation of a more moral system. It is not reducible to a political or ideological project. It is almost as simple as the distinction between MCM' and CMC'. The reduction of everything to a series of use values, with the forces of production anchored by some common social substance expounded in the form of a religiously conceived state. The "sublime state" as the Ottomans called it. That is actually the driving force of production instead of the accumulation of commodities, but the reproduction of a common social and religious substance that ultimately defines the mode of production. That the default citizen or constituents of society's way of life can be reproduced is the ultimate ends and aim of the economy itself. So it is more than just CMC' production of things and commodities, but the reproduction of ways of life that glue together civilisation. This glue is expounded in the form of the sublime state (role of the Emperor in the undivided Church in Roman Empire/Byzantium in calling Ecumenical Councils and such, similarly for the role of the Caliph over the Ummah, I have seen some suggest that Erdoğan could inherit this role despite lack of blood continuity - like how some Orthodox clergy were willing to crown Stalin Tsar, but he turned it down).
I know a lot of people are scandalised by a load of monarchies being on a list of socialist countries. But in the truest sense socialism is inherently monarchical in the correct sense of the word. Every great socialist, or even anti-imperialist leader was a monarch. In modern Communism, this isn't hereditary necessarily. But Stalin and Mao, and today Xi, Kim Jong Un, Putin and even Assad, Khamenei, Akhunzada and Erdoğan - these are princes, kings, in the real sense of the word, and there's nothing wrong with that. Every real society is united by a monarch. The US president was supposed to have more power than the British monarch by the will of the American founding fathers, and term limits are only recently arising, because it's only recently that you need the changing terms and "cycle of democracy" since the deepstate rules behind the scenes, regardless of who the president is nowadays. Before term limits, if someone's rule didn't just keep going on, it was just because they were not a good king.
Every true king does have the backing of the people. The purpose of the cycle of democracy is not to "elect the president" , but to ask, is this still the true king? Every real king bases his power on popular sovereignity. Every great revolution in history was against fake monarchs. Every real monarch is with his people against the aristocracy. That's why Julius Ceasar stood for the poor, because he went beyond what the institutions of the Republic could do because they led to corruption where only the elite were represented. When you say monarchy, people just think about the European monarchs of the modern period of history which were extremely decadent, corrupt fake rulers. But a true monarchy is a good thing. Neoliberal "democracies" are far more dictatorial, tyrannical and despotic than the monarchies of the real dynasties. You wouldn't have been able to do Australia's lock down in the Ottoman Empire.
Civilisation States vs. Colonial Empires
The Mongols, Ottoman Empire, Soviet Union, Russian Empire, Chinese empires and PRC cannot be compared with European colonial powers for they are one continual civilisational state, and not imperialist. Imperialism is not civilisational. Most imperialist colonial empires did not even have geographical continuity, but have a core and then various detached periphery colonies. Even the ones that did have continuity in terms of land established the same dynamic of abstract domination and control of one region over another through the creation of artificial barriers. Even when there is geographical continuity, civilisational continuity was hence prevented. Germany's aspirations in the Balkans for example had nothing to do with wanting to integrate with the slavic people and fuse with them, like we can say the motive of China would have been for Xinjiang. The Germans wanted to enslave them, rob their resources, colonise their lands, and treat the slavic peoples as the other imperial powers treated the non-European peoples. They were a white Africa to them. There was just geographical continuity but no civilisational continuity at all.
In Asiatic empires there existed only one state. There is no distinction between core and peripheries, as the empire expands both the conquerors and conquered change in a dialectic with one another. Chinese identity changed every time China expanded but for Britain taking Nigeria or Senegal wouldn't change Britain either way. Nobody would notice. When the Ottoman empire expanded for example we see a new synthesis and merging of cultures, for example, the entire empire taking on Arabic script.
Multipolarity does not imply eliminating the sovereignty of neighbours, but is about bilateral agreements, trade treaties, border agreements, etc. So there is legal continuity too. Russia never goes halfway across the world to effect regime change like the colonial US. She responds to interethnic conflicts and civil wars already going on in these countries on her borders and is only concerned with the length of her own land and immediate nearby threats. It has no interest in having military bases in Mexico, heck even one in Crimea is apparently scandalous enough.
Conclusion
Between Western Germany and Moscow, there is lots of flat countryside easy for armies to cross. NATO promised Russia they would not move an inch closer to them than Germany, which they have broken their word on countless times. But what is the significance of this point as a line? Well, in 1606 the Polish army invaded Russia, getting as far as Moscow. A century later in 1708, Sweden invaded Russia in the same way. They swept across the North European plain and penetrated deep into Russia. Another century on in 1812, Napoleon did the same, reaching Moscow and setting fire to it. In 1853, the British army landed in the Ukraine and fought the Russian army on the East European plain. In 1914 about another century after Napoleon’s invasion, the Germans decided to invade Russia across the North European plain, and then in 1918, it was Britain’s turn, who landed forces in the North, sending troops across the East European plain, trying to overthrow the Bolsheviks. By 1941, Nazi Germany invaded, almost reaching the very gates of Moscow, again, across the North European plain. I wonder if you are getting the idea? The Russians of course want to keep any potential enemy as far West as can be managed. At the moment the British are in Estonia and the US in Poland, that is about as close as the Russians are possibly going to allow any enemy to come to Moscow. They’ve had so much previous experience of armies charging across the North European plain and heading for Moscow, that they do not want to let anybody have a headstart. They regard that plain as a buffer zone, knowing that it is such a huge area that any army crossing it from Poland or Germany in the direction of Moscow will have to overstretch their supply lines and thus become vulnerable.
Of course, if a potential enemy could start from Ukraine rather than Germany or Poland, then they would find it much easier to strike at Moscow! They would be almost there you see, if they started from Ukraine’s Eastern border. It has not helped matters that after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO started to sign up all of the former Warsaw Pact countries, and began stationing American and British troops in those places. Eastern Europe began to look distinctly hostile from the Russian perspective. So it was that when the Ukraine started to entertain joining NATO, and joining the EU, this posed a serious threat to Russia. Even when Russia informed them that this was not acceptable, the Ukraine kept pushing the point. For Russia, keeping enemies away from those big plains, and especially the Volgograd gap is vital. They are never going to run the risk of anyone marching on Moscow again. Just in case you think the notion is ridiculous that NATO would launch war from where it has now stationed its forces, perhaps you would do well to recall the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, when NATO was actively involved in launching an attack on a former Communist country in Eastern Europe. They bombed a Slav nation then. I’m sure they could do it again.
If only NATO had kept out of Eastern Europe after the fall of the USSR, none of this would have happened and there would not now be a war in the Ukraine. Russia is cast as the villain as far as events in the Ukraine are concerned, but when we look at the historical background, it is possible to see that the Russians have genuine and justifiable anxieties, which have been exacerbated by the behaviour of Britain and the United States. Russia is dealing with a matter in her own backyard, and unlike the US deepstate (what security interests was NATO protecting in Libya or Afghanistan?), has no interest in the internal affairs of countries outside of those which can immediately affect her. Russia does not install favourable governments around the world. Russia does not litter the world with military bases placed through implicit coercion in other countries. Simply put, Russia does not have a pattern of forcibly asserting her dominance and systems upon the world, she has no interest in making the world adopt her system and is quite happy to mind her own business and be left alone. She is merely responding to an immediate existential threat right within her sphere of interest.
With all of this in mind therefore, in final analysis, this document supports in full Russia’s Special Military Operation in the Ukraine as completely justified. Whilst this does not mean we endorse every single action committed by someone in a Russian uniform, we do not care to or have the time to determine which of the accused crimes are real or false within this document. We express sorrow that the tactical events have been taking over a year at the time of writing. Duly noting that the Russian leadership is full of pro-Western elites, especially as levels descend, in spite of the anti-hegemonic forces of Putin, Kadyrov, the KPRF and the forces behind instigating the SMO, we recognise that Russia does have these pro-Western elements undermining her from within, and we condemn them, as these people are against Russia’s own sovereign interests.
We are not pro-war or violence, but we absolutely condemn the West for perpetrating and pushing things thus far; which makes it all the more sickening when we see daily the same people who have created this mess play victim and spread propaganda, all the while encouraging citizens to go and give their lives to defend a fascist regime. Thankfully most citizens in the Ukraine are not Nazis, and it is terrible they’re caught up in this violence. We deeply empathise with them and especially feel sorrow that they be slaughtered by their own countrymen when trying to flee cities because the army wants to use them as human shields. We likewise condemn the frequent practice of Ukranian forces of staging military positions within civilian infrastructure, and often not evacuating civilians from them in a hope it will defend them as Russia is more hesitant to attack and unsure of when civilians are present or not. Disgustingly, when Russia attacks military positions set up in apartments, hospitals, schools, when civilians have not been evacuated, it is used by Ukraine as a sick piece of propaganda, portraying it as if Russia is attacking civilian targets for evil pleasure or something. They set up bases in their peoples’ neighbourhoods and when the people there die whilst they carry out their military operations, they see it as nothing more than collateral damage and a cheap way to point a camera, shock the world and get five minutes of fame and a bit more money. It represents a total disregard for human life. What’s even worse is that when Russia announces that it is going to bomb intel sites and military targets, she gives notice and asks civilians to evacuate. Then Zelensky deliberately does not give them the information, since he wants the civilians to stay in those areas, trapped, knowing full well what will happen to them, and get bombed just so then they can spin the story of Russians killing civilians. It works as well because of projection, people in the West assume that Russia is acting by the same standards of the US, targeting schools, hospitals, and so on.
From day one it has struck me that Zelensky is more concerned about dragging out the war than seeking a realist consensus with Russia. I also suspect he wants Russia to lose patience and tilt her towards killing more civilians. It is staggering how people can’t see NATO imperialism sacrificing Ukrainians for their sick agenda. The West could have ended the conflict whenever they felt like if they had just worked with Russia, but no, they’d rather watch Zelensky throw civilians and Hitler youth children at Russian tanks when a peace deal could have been worked out.
The truth is, Russia sees Ukrainians as their own people, or brothers at the very least. One can argue whether this is legitimate or not. But this means one thing: Russia is determined to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible, because she does not see the Ukranian people as an enemy.
Really it is only the Communist Party of the Russian Federation that is in full sincere support of this SMO, Putin has only launched it as a begrudging compromise with the popular forces of Russia, which he had been delaying for as long as possible. It was absolutely not done on behalf of the oligarchic class. This war breaks them from western financial capital, which forms the basis of their existence as a class. It is Communists in Russia saying Putin is not going hard enough. Of course, we can talk about how we would have liked it to have been handled better. I would have liked it to not be prolonged and have so many casualties as a result. But Russia’s motives are not the destruction or occupation of the Ukraine, and really a peace deal would be very simple to work out. If she really wanted to topple the Ukraine, like how the US toppled Iraq, this war would have been over in days. They would just bomb the heck out of Kiev. There would be nothing left, and that would have given NATO the excuse they needed to condemn Russia
Russia will probably pivot to Asia, and join China and hopefully India, as Asia rises, and brings the global South with it. .
The stories we hear in the West are, if not in majority of cases completely false or twisted, at the very best heavily selected. We cannot bring up every case here, but encourage our readers to be sceptical of every Russian warcrime reported and guarantee that there is a complimentary Ukrainian one to match. Western censorship is all the more insidious because people are not aware it is there. They believe their news channels and Google searches are showing them all of the information that there is available. They have no idea search results are excluded on masse, or stories left on the cutting room floor. The Ukraine is given a pass for its conduct which would usually bring international condemnation, certainly if Russia was doing them. A perfect instance was seen on 22nd November 2022 where a missile landed in Poland, killing two people, and for a while came near to triggering a war between all of NATO and Russia. Poland claimed that the missile was Russian and talked of invoking Article 5. The West united in condemnation of Russia for firing a missile into a neutral country, typical Russian aggression! Then the whole thing abruptly disappeared from the news with nothing to be heard, this is because it was discovered that it was actually a Ukrainian missile that had struck Poland and killed people. Well, that’s alright then isn’t it?
This is a double standard. We have seen the exact same thing with regards to the Ukrainian military using its population as human shields, something to which even Amnesty International has drawn attention to. If you wish to attack another country whilst still portraying yourself as a victim, then a method is to ensure that any response to your attacks will always result in civilian deaths, especially those of children and the infirm, as this makes the other side look terrible. You station your artillery and missile launchers in the playground of the shcool or carpark of the hospital, and then you open fire on your enemy. The return fire will be aimed at your forces, the direction your shots came from. Since you based your forces near children and hospital patients, you get an excellent chance of these innocent civilians being injured or killed when the return fire hits the general area around you during the counterattack on your forces. Of course, deliberately endangering civilians like this is stomach turning and a violation of the rules of warfare, but there you go, that’s the Ukraine for you. It’s hard to prove, especially if you manage to remove the evidence of your initial attack before you invite the press in on the scenes of devastation. This is exactly what the Ukraine has been doing, as as a consequence have been able to milk some “cracking headlines”, showing the damage that Russia has inflicted upon schools, hospitals, residential buildings and so on. What’s a few human lives to Zelensky for a spot in the evening news? It really makes Russia look awful. As they’re very quick to remove the evidence it creates sympathy for the Ukranian cause in the world’s press. In Europe and the United States, the Ukraine can do no wrong, their cynical use of human lives in this way is now common knowledge, but nobody will address the matter. Whatever the Ukraine does is automatically regarded as being virtuous and good, whilst every action of Russia’s is wicked and barbaric. It will be interesting to see how Westerners views will change in 10 or 20 years from now, with a little perspective. I very much doubt that history will view this in the same light that we do now. A geopolitical struggle is taking place, and without looking at the entirety from a global standpoint, it’s not easy to see the implications of what is actually happening now.