all 7 comments

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't think the Russians care about Western opinion. They'll never win the info war against ZOG in the west.

De-nazification is for the domestic audience. For Slavs, particularly Russians, Nazi/Fascist has a different meaning than what it is for the west. It's essentially a western enemy that is invading or being hostile to Russians. Painting the war as a struggle against Nazism allows them to curry sympathy with the Soviet boomer demographic.

Its essentially a reboot of the great patriotic war where patriotic Russians are beating back Nazi aggressors from West.

That's what really matters: the home front. Having western sympathy is pointless because western peoples are powerless.

Russians have full sympathy in China, Iran, Serbia, and most of India. A lot of Bulgarians are sympathetic to Russia as well.

The Russian program for all practical intents is nationalist. Putin is playing right out of Solzhenytsin's playbook. Solzhenytsin was a Russian ultranationalist and traditionalist and firmly advocated for the reconquest of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. If he was alive today, he'd be Putin's loudest supporter.

And Putin was good friends with Solzhenitsyn. He gave the writer a state funeral and erected many statues in his honor.

And Solzhenitsyn was as based as you could possibly be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Hundred_Years_Together

[–]TheJamesRocket[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's what really matters: the home front. Having western sympathy is pointless because western peoples are powerless.

Yes, but they could have come up with a far better justification for the war than 'denazification.' That line doesn't convince anyone other than the Russian people alone. It leaves them completely exposed to political criticism.

Solzhenytsin was a Russian ultranationalist and traditionalist and firmly advocated for the reconquest of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.

After 8 years of occupation by Jewish criminals, the Ukraine has virtually been turned into a 3rd world country. Its a complete mess in every sense of the word. Russia stands to gain nothing by occupying the Ukraine. There is no economic incentive to invade them at all, in fact, it will be an economic drain on them. Because after Russia is victorious, they will have to spend billions on nation building.

Putin didn't invade the Ukraine out of a desire to rebuild the USSR, or to conquer lost republics. He did it because they refused to sign the Minsk agreements, because they were hosting NATO troops and weapons systems, and because they were planning to invade the Donetsk. Putin literally had no choice.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The world has long been itching to get at Putin. After all, whether he knows it or not, he's in charge of one of the last two global 'White powers'. It was Brezhnev who was probably the last leader in that region to have actually understood to some extent the importance of race, even if he only used his understanding pragmatically. For example, in trying to get Nixon to see China as a bigger threat than the USSR because their countries were ethnically similar despite being ideologically divergent, whereas the Chinese are ethnically alien and yet ideologically similar. Thus Brezhnev was simply saying: how about you Americans start seeing ethnicity above ideology? That Soviet Slavs and White Americans should be on the same side at least insofar as Red China is concerned, first and foremost because our blood is closer.

Everyone who adheres to 'anti-racism' and 'CRT' and so forth want Russia destroyed just as they do America. These people like Kendi, DiAngelo, Delgado, etc. whose ideas today abound indeed do see the world in terms of races (albeit not biological races, only in the limited but very clear sense of 'White oppressor', 'blacks and Jews oppressed', 'everyone else somewhere midway'). Russia and America destroying each other would be truly amazing for these people: killing two birds with one stone. A Russo-American War would truly be their greatest wish second to a total 'mayocide'. This is why we must be fervently anti-war at the present time. And if America really wants to play 'world policeman' one more time, expending it's last strength to really harm Europe before it itself descends into the third-world shithole we have long foreseen, well, let motherfuckin' Tyrone from Chicago; Shitavious from Atlanta; Kike (yes, an actual Hispanic nickname, related to the name 'Enrique') from Mexico, who is only in it to pick up skills to pass on to his street gang; Ngubu; Emma with the two mothers from that woke advertisement; and all of these other dipshits sort it out. The Russians can at least bag plenty of them before their country falls.

Furthermore, Russia is the perfect opponent for America. Republicans hate Russia because they view them as neo-Soviets living under a tyranny. Democrats hate Russia because they're the rival 'White power' and taking them down would greatly boost POC supremacy. This is why Russiagate is such a successful conspiracy theory: both anti-Trump Republicans and Democrats can feasibly believe in this senseless drivel in which there is supposedly some great crime that has been committed and yet no conclusive evidence has ever been produced. Which is why Trump is still walking around a free man rather than in jail like they desperately desire. If 'Russiagate' could be conclusively proven, does anyone seriously think that they'd allow Trump to walk free? The same guy that they want deader than dead? The same guy whose death they'll be publicly celebrating, and been desperately wishing for since 2015? And who, most mysteriously, 'unrigged' the election such that the 2020 election was the 'most secure election in American history'? And why did Trumputin raise sanctions on Russia if he really was Agent Orange? Nothing adds up. Russiagate is simply Left-wing QAnon. It's wishful thinking by those 'progressives' and others who desperately want to believe that Trump could never be fairly elected because "we're better than that".

Now, let us compare China to Russia. One notices that China simply can't compete: Republicans will hate China for much the same reasons they hate Russia (pinko commies who need to learn to become liberal), but there is no serious reason for which Democrats will hate China. Hating China simply doesn't serve Democrat psychology: being anti-China is just about trying to keep POC down, it's about 'White supremacy' trying to preserve itself. Thus China as bogeyman makes them highly uncomfortable to say the least, whilst Russia as bogeyman simply doesn't. Russia as bogeyman simply makes total sense from our enemies' viewpoints: having one lot of Whites hate another lot gets us closer to being rid of Whites entirely.

The true oddity of this war is that it is perhaps the very first in which both sides have totally been framed by mediatization, filter bubbles, fake news and so forth. People everywhere are saying that this is 'World War II' again. But it isn't: World War II was actually fought by peoples with different ideologies. This here is far more analogous to the Spanish Civil War; that is, if we took that war and rendered it fully retarded.

Notice that Zelensky's 'international brigade' composed of foreign volunteers—Zelensky, who fancies himself the Republican leader here, complete with his own little 'International Brigades' like those that went from countries like the Ukraine to Spain—and whatever Putin calls his foreign fighters are actually there for the exact same purpose. Namely, killing everyone's favourite bogeymen: the 'Far-Right', 'fascists', 'neo-Nazis' etc. It is really unfolding into a global 'anti-Far-Right', 'anti-fascist', 'anti-neo-Nazi' crusade.

But here's the kicker. There are simply no fascists to kill. The only difference between them is that the anti-fascists on each side hilariously think that the anti-fascists on the other are themselves fascists, leading to wholesale anti-fascist on anti-fascist violence. Think about it: Ukrainian 'liberal' and 'Leftist' anti-fascists and their allies like all of the American, Canadian, Chilean and South Korean 'Special Forces' soyboys who are being decimated in airstrikes are fighting... just who exactly? Yep, Russian 'conservative' anti-fascists like Putin and their allies like the Sovok or 'tankie' anti-fascists. It's wholesale anti-fascist on anti-fascist violence. These people are traveling to hunt down and kill 'fascists', but the howler is that they're only shooting and being shot by anti-fascists.

This is where I reveal the sheer retardation of this whole affair. Both sides see themselves as the 'real' Republicans and the other as Nationalists. This is what I mean by the 'Spanish Civil War', but rendered retarded. There are simply two Republican factions. Both have the same goal: to kill the 'Nationalists'. But there is no Nationalist faction; no Franco. There are only Republican leaders. It would be as if Azana declared Caballero the 'real Franco' and Caballero declared Azana the 'real Franco'. Thus Franco, the Falange, the Nationalists, they all exist only in the minds of the Republicans. The Republican anti-fascists on both sides are, hilariously, killing each other over delusions and lies.

Some, like Baudrillard, had observed much less severe versions of this phenomenon. But Baudrillard did not live to see this: a whole war in which the entire narrative for fighting—we are the true Republicans, the enemy are Nationalists—is essentially fake.

[–]TheJamesRocket[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Russian attempts to brand their invasion of the Ukraine as a 'denazification' campaign has (uniquely) managed to alienate both the right and left wing. The right wing is alienated because they have been unfairly compared to the Nazis for years: They view it as a lazy copout of an argument and have no sympathy for those who use it. The left wing is alienated because they view the Nazis as the ne plus ultra of evil: They view the argument as completely unjustified, especially since they see the Russians themselves as evil.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I dont know what it's like in Europe or the rest of the anglosphere, but "Right wing" Americans are permanently pied pipered by fox news. Unless Putin announced he was invading Ukraine to install a Ted Cruz and Sean Hannity republic with lower taxes, he was never going to get the support from the american right. The American left was already convinced he was Trump's secret partner, united to usher in a nazi takeover of the American regime. So I'm not sure it's made any difference around here. As long as Americans can booost their social credit score by changing their facebook picture to blue and yellow, they will side with Ukraine.

[–]VacaLeitera 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree that there is zero chance western audiences will be convinced by "muh Nazis" as a casus-belli, especially in the case of Ukraine.

However, I must note that being from Latin America, most of the organic support I see Russia getting comes not from the right, but from the pseudo-Stalinist far-left and populist left, which is staunchly pro-China and pro-Putin. The amount of USSR-worshipping tankie LARPers in certain parts of the third world is non-negligible. If Russia suddenly goes full nationalist and traditionalist, it will likely lose a lot of support among retarded third-world elites who still think of the world using a cold-war era paradigm. Why Russia would prefer to appeal to these people instead of the much stronger and relevant Western dissident right is a bit incomprehensible. Probably due to Russian elites themselves still having loads of people in their ranks who have this same mentality of nostalgia for the glorious Soviet Union and its crusade against Hitler and fascism.

[–]CircumsteinRabbi Circumstein 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some of these people like Peru's Pedro Castillo seem closer to the 'tankie' Left than to the more Western 'progressive' Left. Conversely, the 'tankie' Left in the West is simply on the political fringes and possibly even less popular than the 'Far-Right', whereas the 'progressive Left' wields immense power. Here, 'tankies' are usually (and wrongly) just dismissed as 'Red Fascists', 'Fascists obsessed with Soviet symbolism', etc., whereas every political party compromises heavily with the 'progressive Left' to remain relevant.

'Tankies' obviously aren't 'fascists': they're just marginally less obnoxious Leftists who are more anthropocentric, economistic and materialistic and thus less inclined to interfere with things like 'heteronormativity', 'cisnormativity', meat-eating, pet ownership and whatever else the more obnoxious 'progressives' ever-increasingly problematize.

When people talk about a 'pink tide' in Latin America, I think they're really talking about a swingback to these two different sides conflated as one.

On one side, you have more 'tankie' or 'red' Leftists, which overlap with indigenist politics. Bolivia's Evo Morales was, like Castillo and Maduro, one of these: anti-White (both against the slightly more mixed upper-class internally as well as against the 'West' that he believed was an external threat constantly conspiring against him), vaguely 'populist' and less individualistic or pluralistic, anthropocentric and extractivist (not really concerned with 'the environment' and focused much more on people, very interested in exporting natural resources to accrue wealth), developmentalist (interested in using the state as a tool to drive economic growth), and so forth.

This type of Leftist is rather like what some Western countries also had before multiculturalism became state policy, before the rise of what political scientists call 'postmaterialism' (increased wealth basically allowed Leftists to shift their attention to non-material types of inequality, which is why they're all about race, gender, sexuality and not 'class' today), etc. They were mostly focused on things like 'class', 'labour' and 'capitalism'.

So Castillo, Maduro, Morales... they are not really what 'progressive' Westerners want, even if some of them like Bernie Sanders (probably out of sheer ignorance) explicitly defended Maduro against the threat posed by the 'progressive' Juan Guaido. He surely didn't know that Maduro's regime, while anti-White, isn't concerned about things like 'homophobia', whereas Guiado's party is moreso. I think the Guaido-Maduro conflict really highlights the fact that there are two 'Lefts' being conflated here when they use the term 'pink'. Maduro is more 'red' and Guaido is more 'pink', and the two are clearly in a conflict with each other as well as with the 'blue' like Bolsonaro. It is something of a three-way conflict, with two 'Lefts'. In Ecuador there was the conflict between the more 'red' Correa and his successor, the more 'pink' Moreno. This can only be understood if we view them as really being adherents of different ideologies. The fighting between 'pink' and 'red' laughably allowed the current President, Lasso, who is clearly 'blue' (conservative), to win against a divided 'Left'. Not only that, but some of the 'red'/indigenist Left preferred to vote for Lasso than the 'pink' candidate in the runoff.

By contrast, Chile's Gabriel Boric is clearly 'progressive', 'woke', 'pink' and basically what Westerners love. Much less anthropocentric and extractivistic, much more concerned with 'climate change' and environmentalism. Much less economistic and materialistic, much more interested in 'gender equality', 'LGBT' and 'non-binary'. Boric clearly and explicitly opposes the Cuban, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan regimes. He is much more like Guaido than Maduro.

Now, of course you will know the wretched Lula. I think that he is much more 'pink' than 'red'. The PT is socially liberal compared to Maduro's regime. Is there anything in Brazil that is even 'red' or 'tankie'? Even the communist PCdoB really seems quite 'pink' to me, because it is even more 'progressive' than the PT. It seems to me that Brazilian politics is between 'pink tide' (e.g. PT, PDT, PV, PCdoB) and 'blue tide' (e.g. UNIAO, PRB, PP).

Probably the most fascinating political phenomenon in Brazil in recent decades was PRONA.