zlemflolia

a tangent but as long as there are resources being contested by various representative entities with leverage there will be resource deprivation and escalating conflict to resolve them, the conflicts will manifest in points of contradiction in the chain of production or geography. the only resolution is the elimination of the contesting entities altogether and the planning of conflictless distribution and production through a unified system of harmonious agreement, hate to always end up saying it but it seems only capable of being done through socialism, which is hardly completely unrelated considering russia/ukraine's past and US's original anti-socialist aims with NATO

this was good thanks however, it doesn't address this situation directly. this situation is directly an inter-capitalist conflict between the Ukrainian and Russian bourgeoisie, fought by each's proletariat, and more indirectly it is an inter-capitalist conflict between the US and Russian bourgeoisie. i don't think i would characterize it as a Ukrainian anti-imperialist national liberation struggle; when regarding the history of the event it's more clearly an inter-capitalist US-Russia proxy war being fought on Ukrainian soil what should be a Ukrainian proletarian's reaction? clearly accepting weapons from NATO and using them against Russia what should be a Russian proletarian's reaction? clearly this document claims that it would be sabotage of the Russian military offensive what should be an American proletarian's reaction? I'm not entirely sure how you differentiate it from the Russian's proletarian reaction. what is the effect of pushing escalation of the conflict by encouraging NATO arms shipments to the Ukrainian bourgeoisie, apart from lengthening the war and making it more severe? when you look at putin's claims as to why he started the war, the facts that were previously reported in even mainstream media pre-war, its clear that a naive interpretation of putin invading for fun or for ukrainian resources, as if there will be any left at this point, is not very meaningful, when clearly his statements were directed at biden and NATO

dont see how becoming the latest weapons contractor cash cow by letting themselves be used in a US-Russia proxy war and destroying their country and killing so many people in the process is forging their own path, or other idealism. and its not even the ukrainian state's fault, it's the US's

i mean you can hyperbolize what i said if you want but all im trying to say is supporting the ukrainian government and NATO is not a flawless position and you are supporting a corrupt oligarchic state that just happens to be on the defensive (whereas it used to be on the offensive against its own citizens in decades long civil wars) along with imperialist NATO warmongers urging them on with weapons. the only side anyone should be on is the citizens, whose material interests are not necessarily aligned directly with one specific nation in this national conflict, but is instead aligned directly with whatever ends the war the soonest, no matter what national pride is bruised, and backing ukraine+NATO is not the clear position that will end the war ASAP unless you can convince me otherwise, and its now gone on how long? so clearly that didn't work well. why is ukraine drafting if the people themselves supposedly want to fight so bad? no, the state wants to force the people to fight antiwar vs prolong the war on ukraine/nato's "side" I think the more moral position is clear

i mean isnt that what the US and NATO already did im not trying to simp for putin, but sending the ukrainian government, one that was already massively corrupt, tons of weapons and extending this war doesn't help. how can we tell whether it was preferable to let ukraine lose rather than prolong the war and kill more people and destroy more infrastructure, rather than go with the terms of their loss? we can't know, since the US and nato aren't interested in finding out to begin with since they fueled this

original terms of surrender did not involve occupation and theres nothing suggesting putin wanted to occupy or maintain an occupation. you can say he would have just lied and ignored them but then whats the point of asking for them when clearly if he did that they would back out of the terms i cant even find them now since search engines are useless for finding information, probably on purpose, but i copied the list of terms early on in this thread and everyone thought they were so horrible, well they were very preferable to what has ended up happening.

whats the point of even living if there isn't a proletarian dictatorship outlawing everything bad and enforcing everything good

if only ukraine had just accepted putins original terms of surrender and allowed independence of the regions they had been perpetrating civil wars against for a decade then there wouldn't have been this massive war. but of course people will attack this statement with vulgar nationalistic pride in the ukrainian borders, or something, which were only drawn a few decades ago in some of those regions for administative reasons in the USSR. these imaginary borders are more important than ukrainian and russian lives apparently. and people will attack me for saying it when the only goal of the statement is minimization of death, apparently something people urging on ukraine to keep fighting don't care about. if the ukrainian people wanted to fight this war they wouldn't need to be drafting everyone from young boys to transgender women into the war

just noticed ur name means rabbit in japanese cute 兎

jordan BITCH peterson is getting GROOMED by hella gilfs and basically, you're a dumbass CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE

new hakim just dropped its a banger yes im aware its not related to microplastics but tbh it kinda is since this system of shitty production is whats causing them

its no surprise in the core of the empire of capitalism, the propaganda is so deep. people vote against their own healthcare. insanity. but it makes sense when you look at the media and economic incentives people are presented with. one thing I notice is if you buy a specific product one day, then buy the same one again a year later, often that same product with the same serial number has degraded in quality significantly to become thinner or less durable. it should be illegal and fine specifications on production materials should be part of the product, and substantial changes should requires a whole new product with a descriptive name. of course, this wont happen under capitalism

its all getting so tiring i see no solution except workers seizing the means of production, building green mass transit, communal resources for everything, the list goes on. the only solution is socialism and communism and yet people still argue against it. i cant even be asked to argue with anyone still defending capitalism. you are fascists. there is no arguing or debating this