Uh. It includes Putin. Did you just miss it?

Yeah, I just saw it.

I thought China and Russia were allies of Iran and didn’t want the US to kill Khamenei. Oh well. No cognitive dissonance here. Trump just does what he’s told by people who wouldn’t tell him to do those things. Makes sense

Videos are used to locate people

Seriously. How are you able to say these things without a hint of self awareness. You know what it looks like to enter a war voluntarily? It looks like the US and Israel bombing Iran. It looks like the Third Reich invading every country on the path to Russia. Like what the fuck do you imagine you are saying? The USSR knew that engaging in war with the Third Reich was a necessity as soon as they got a copy of Mein Kampf. It’s such a ridiculous statement to say that because the USSR joined the war out of necessity that therefore it is not appropriate to consider that their defeat of the Nazis was a good thing that the USSR did. Ludicrous.

Most leftists do NOT ignore the flaws of the USSR. In fact, those flaws are studied as part of the process of historical materialism. For example, every leftist knows that Stalin was a violent paranoid control freak. Every leftist knows that the repression of religion was a major mistake. Hell, even the USSR figured that one out and reversed the policy.

If you think leftists ignore the USSR’s faults, that’s on you. But if your problem is actually that you believe the faults of the USSR erase anything good that could possibly be attributed to them, then that’s a different problem and it’s intellectually dishonest to say that the only proper way of acknowledging the flaws of the USSR is to condemn the entire project, denounce it, and never use it as an example of something good. Those positions are not equivalent

Stop. That question assumes way too much. So let’s unpack it and reverse it on you.

Are you saying that ending the treaty when the UK entered the war would indicate to you that the USSR was a righteous ally of good and true humanity but that not ending the treat at that time would indicate to you that they were actually Nazi collaborators or at best willing to let the Nazis take over the entire world as long as they didn’t get attacked (which they knew would happen because again, the Third Reich was abundantly clear that destroying the USSR was its number 1 goal)?

Because if you can think through the answer to that, we can answer your question, which is that the USSR had always known that the UK was not ally, and it knew that because the UK and its allies, including the US, invaded Russia after WW1 to try to stop the communists from forming the USSR. The USSR, however, didn’t think the UK would be so evil as to literally turn a blind eye, and even financially support the fascists.

After the USSR sought to ally with the West to defeat the Nazis and they said “nah”, even you can see that the USSR was completely on its own to survive and the UK entering the war, while the majority of Nazi forces were on the Eastern front, did not change the strategic landscape enough to make the USSR capable of surviving an open conflict with the Third Reich in the fall of 1939.

Between 1939 (UK declaring) and 1941 (USSR declaring), the Red Army quadrupled in size. The idea that the USSR should have just decided to fight in 1939, when it was 25% the size it was when it eventually won is literally the same idea as the USSR should have lost the war but done so while adhering to your definition of morally good. It’s daft.

So did the USSR not defeat 80% of the Nazi military, liberate every territory East of Berlin that the Nazis had captures, capture Berlin, and liberate the concentration camps? Or did they do that but you need to make sure everyone is aware that they only did that to protect themselves and shouldn’t be considered heroes?

I mean, cuz what it sounds like you’re saying is that defeating the Nazis isn’t enough, you actually also have to be morally good according to a standard that you will never admit the USSR into but also could never apply to any country in the history of the world.

Absolute comedy gold

I’m not angry, Lu. I’m just disappointed

I wish you all the best in your rage-induced commenting spree where you pretend to be smarter than people because they don’t accept your framing. Ta! See you around the other comments your chasing me down on.

Oh hey, I got you mad enough to chase me around now, eh? Welcome! I like that your primary beef with me is that you think I can’t read but then you post this particular link. Very well done! Do continue, please.

You do realize that the border is with Tibet, right? An autonomous region within China that has never been recognized as a state with firm boundaries in all of human history. The border is contentious because borders are contentious. As much as you might not like border disputes, there is nothing socialist or anti-socialist about having border disputes. Nepal doesn’t want to make a big diplomatic stink over the situation. You want to psychologize them as fearful of China and therefore China isn’t socialist?

You’re not making any sense. China is not engaged in imperial capitalist expansion simply because there’s a few hundred acres being built on by the TAR along their own border in ways that violate the border. That’s a resolvable tension and doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

So nothing. Got it.

So did Poland, France, and the UK. Your point is?

Yeah a border dispute over a few hundred acres. Please don’t use words like “territorial expansion” when discussing a few hundred acres along a contentious border that has historically been undefined and only in modern times have there been an attempt to make them fixed.

I find it hard to believe that China is engaged in territorial expansion when it hasn’t dropped a single bomb in 35 years

Or do mean the border dispute with India? Because that’s an artifact of the British drawing shitty borders and imposing them on subjugated people and those people have not established an effective framework for redressing the problem yet

Sorry!

the tankie pivot from being the saviors of mankind to being the victims who couldn’t stand up to western bullying

That’s sounds exactly like what you said. You don’t understand how the narrative could be that the USSR won the war to the USSR lost against the West. Maybe you use words differently. I’m open to it. Definitions are unjustified hierarchy. Explain what you mean.

Or, you know, dig in deeper by not having anything of substance to say and just keep trying to win by virtue signalling. That works for your audience, too.

Hitler threatened the USSR over a decade before he invaded. He wrote it in Mein Kampf. It was out in the open. Stalin attempted to get Western Europe to take the threat seriously, but Western European leaders understood that the primary target of the Third Reich was the USSR and they all wanted the Third Reich to win that war. Stalin never believed that the Third Reich would be an ally, and the attempt of people to spin it that way is so intellectually dishonest it boggles the mind.

They live in India