Literally lol’d at the title. Caitlin doesn’t hesitate to tell us how she really feels.
this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
7 points (60.6% liked)
Geopolitics : News and discussion
415 readers
26 users here now
Rules:
- Be polite and do not spam.
- Domestic news items without any geopolitics are spam.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 16 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
So this article is just a rant about Russia/Ukraine but the title mentions Anti-China propaganda?
Why are so many MLs so hellbent on the defense of Russia? I just don't get it. There's no universe where you'd see me jump to the defense of Vladimir Putin and his cronies.
We don't have a unified view of Russia. Those who see Russia more positively do so because it's weakening the west. But whether we see Russia positively or not, we don't necessarily like its government, or Putin, or whatever else. I might push back against propaganda and remind people about the coup, but that's about it.
Why are so many MLs so hellbent on the defense of Russia? I just don’t get it.
Thats because you refuse to see your liberal "media" for what it truly is, liberal empire propaganda. You should open your mind to good non-western sources like RT, but you wont considering you sit at the zionazi bar of .world
Even Caitlin Johnstone acknowledges that Russia is an empire engaging in imperialism in this article. She just also recognizes that the US is doing the same. Neither empire gives a single shit about the sovereignty of Ukrainians.
I don't know the author but I did a quick search within the article, which didn't call Russia an empire, nor does it claims Russia is engaging in imperialism, it only called Russia an aggressor.
Only then can both aggressors, Russia and the western empire, begin working toward mutual de-escalation.
I took that as both the Russian and Western Empire.
I also don't know anything about the author, I just know that both being empires is correct, neither is anti-imperialist either.
The issue is that empire and imperialism aren't simply "big country bullies small country", imperialism describes a specific relation under financial capitalism and Russia doesn't fulfill the conditions. That doesn't mean we necessarily think Russia is good, or moral, or whatever, but that calling it "imperialist" is incorrect.
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/russia-imperialist-country-thats-not-right-question-ask
Spoiler
It would be wrong, as some have argued, to mechanically take Lenin’s “five essential features” found in Chapter VII as giving a criterion for admission into some kind of imperialist club.
It could not be clearer that Imperialism as a Special Stage of Capitalism is not about the status of individual countries in the imperialist system, but about imperialism as a whole. Capital concentration, the merging of financial capital with industrial capital, the export of capital, international monopolies, and the territorial division of the world (spheres of interest) are features of the imperialist stage of capitalism, and not necessarily any individual country in the imperial project.
Whether it is tsarist Russia (a mix of emerging capitalist relations in urban areas and only weakly exited feudal relations in rural areas) or Vladimir Putin’s Russia (a stunted industrial capitalist economy, but with enormous essential resources), the capacity to participate in great power activity, to enlarge or protect spheres of interest, to confront other great powers is an unquestionable reality. Whether it is tsarist Russia (a mix of emerging capitalist relations in urban areas and only weakly exited feudal relations in rural areas) or Vladimir Putin’s Russia (a stunted industrial capitalist economy, but with enormous essential resources), the capacity to participate in great power activity, to enlarge or protect spheres of interest, to confront other great powers is an unquestionable reality.
To hide this reality — this active participation in the conflict with other capitalist countries — behind the facade that Russia does not meet the “five essential features” characterising the imperialist era is sheer sophistry.
That's an opinion piece, I disagree with the quoted bit as I don't think people calling Russia imperialist are doing so because they believe we exist in an era of financial capital, etc etc, I think they say Russia is imperialist because they're trying to equate the western empire to Russia and I don't think they're the same in scale or in character, even if I don't think Russia is moral or whatever.
So are you disagreeing with Russia being an imperialist power or with people using that cynically to minimize American Empire? Because I've never remotely equated the two, so what's the disagreement here.
It's a very comprehensive analysis utilizing Lenin's theory on imperialism within the framework of contemporary global capitalism. If you weren't disagreeing with Russia being imperialist based on a Marxist definition, then I'm not clear what you're arguing on. Since in practice, Russia's belligerent actions on-the-ground in Ukraine are clearly imperialist. Did you have an actual critique of the article? Because otherwise this conversation just seems unproductive.
That's not an answer to my question. I would think that MLs would be absolutely opposed to imperialism in all forms? I just want explaination of what's going on, instead I get... this? It's not really an attack but it's definitely a hostile answer. I just wanna know whats defensible about a totalitarian state very much ruled for the benefit of 1 man from the view of someone who says they're a communist.
me use fancy word of communists wrongly, to describe country I want to genocide, yet communists still opposed to genocide???