Ask Lemmygrad

So the people who fight the genocidal empire which spreads banderites-nazi propaganda inside Ukraine, are bad? Zelensky who has said he basically wants to be like Israel and made azov into the official army is the guy one should support?

I’m not sure how to write this without it sounding like ragebait or a fed post.

You very clearly failed at avoiding that.

Morals? Full scale invasion? Russia bad? Fall out of windows? Nazivalny mentioned? Irrational putin?

That's not just a bingo, that's a full bingo board of liberalism

This is a bad post and all, but take this moment to both consider what "critical support" means and in which contexts you should use it.

It depends on your broader strategical goals. If you are a Venezuelan or Haitian communist/socdem for example, critical support for Russia means taking some pressure off of your back while gaining a potential ally. If you support Chinese Socialism, the war also depletes NATO before it can go against China.

If there were conditions for a revolution in Ukraine when the war broke out, it might make sense for those revolutionaries to align with either or neither army tactically for the broader strategical goal.

Morals are secondary, as they define your strategy, not your tactics.

This post has been reported for obvious trolling, but I think it's worth leaving it up for the discussion as people have explained what critical support means here.

But what about morals of this?

I find it morally questionable to support an aggressor in such a clear scenario.

Do any of you have any moral reasoning to critically support Russia? Or do you support it out of strategic reasons despite moral objections?

op, this entire post can be boiled down to your need to look up what "critical support" actually means.

But why do most fellow Marxists critically support Russia today?

Because they're fighting the US through their proxy in Ukraine, it do be as simple as that honestly. The NATO encirclement, the banderite stuff, the ethnic cleansing, etc just further strengthens the support, but the main reason is their alignment with the US, the global imperialist hegemon. The US having to allocate more resources into Ukraine opens up space for progress all around the world.

But what about morals of this?

What does that have to do with Marxism? Even if we appeal to morals, a "bad" moral conflict could be "good" in the grand scheme of things, that being fighting US imperialism. If revolutionaries cared about every morally troublesome decision, there wouldn't be any revolution.

Can you explain how you:

• are ignorant of the conversations that have been had on this topic for 3 years.

• with a 2 year old account.

• while using "red guard" in your username.

You're clearly not as unfamiliar with the topic or the ML thought process followed here as your post implies.

I think it's weird wrecker shit to re-hash topics that were covered in this space already.

How much do you know about the era prior to Russian intervention in Ukraine? As far as i understand it the Ukrainian backed neo-nazi groups were literally shelling ethnically Russian towns, and killing civilians long before Russia stepped in. So i don't think portraying this as a black, and white agressor vs defender situation is correct. Donetsk, and Luhansk were actively asking Russia to intervene.

Now do i think that is why Russia intervened? Because they are just super nice, and wanted to help? Fuck no. They did it for geopolitical reasons like anything else. To secure the historically single most effective corridor for invading Russia. That doesn't mean that context is irrelevant though.

This is also functionally a proxy war. It's the US vs Russia, but the US is using Ukraine as its manpower pool, and bullet sponge. Ukraine doesn't have the ability to defend itself like it's done alone. Even with western backing it's losing.

The war only happened because the US wanted it to happen. They played Russia, but it backfired on them. The US wanted Russia to come in, and get weakened by Ukraine. Didn't really care how much damage Ukraine took in the process. But Russia is arguably better off militarily today than it was before this war started. It's also strengthened the ties between China, and Russia since Russia relies on China to be its economic lifeline in spite of all the sanctions.

So to answer the question: Why critically support Russia?

Morally- Tie: Neither side is worth a damn. Ukrainian civilians and Russian civilians are both innocent, and leadership in both countries is irredeemably evil.

Strategically-Russia Wins: Russian victory weakens the US. Aids the long term goal of destroying US empire.

Pragmatically-Russia Wins: If Ukraine maintains its independence it will have a total lack of young people, destroyed infrastucture, and be economically insolvent. It will be turned into a resource extraction site for the west, and likely never recover. It's neo-nazi government will be backed by the US, and impossible to overthrow via domestic rebellion. Another war could happen at any time. Not just with Russia, but with Turkey, Poland, etc. If conditions arise to allow it. As Ukraine will still not have nukes, and will be weakened significantly.

If Russia wins Ukraine will be taken over, and become part of Russia. Economically they'll be better off. Likely with significant investment from both Russia, and China in rebuilding their infrastucture. Still used as a resource extraction site, but since manpower will be able to be brought in from the rest of Russia working conditions will likely be better. They'll now be under the Russian nuclear umbrella. So unless WW3 happens another war isn't likely. (Yeah WW3 isn't exactly unlikely, but yknow.) Ukraine also has significant wheat production. To the west this is kind of a meh thing. They have plenty of farmland in the US, and are more interested in minerals. But Russia/China would be quite interested in maintaining wheat output, and would not risk it just to get some minerals. Not just for their own use, but to keep nations like Egypt stable. So the international food supply markets are likely to be more stable in this situation. Which helps not just Ukrainians themselves via jobs, and investment, but anyone in a food insecure region too.

Anecdotally-Russia wins: Idk how much this matters to other people, but personally when it comes to foreign policy stuff I recognize that the info we as civilians have access to is limited. So i look to the positions of organizations i believe have similar long term goals to my own, communist orgs, and also have access to more information. Intelligence agencies, etc.

China: Officially neutral, but leans toward Russian support.

DPRK: Openly supports Russia.

Vietnam: Neutral, Abstains from UN votes about the conflict.

Cuba: Leans pro-Russia.

These have a clear trend. When 0 AES states are supporting the side of Ukraine that tells me all i need to know. The situation isn't black, and white clearly. But critical support for Russia is the choice that makes the most sense for me. Not that my random poor person trying to survive opinion does much of anything.

What does morality has to do with this? Marxism is not a moral compass. Sure each of us have our own moral compass that is influenced by our own cultures, but that is not a part of Marxism.

We can disagree with Russia all we want, the reality of the matter is that, at the end of the day, they are still fighting and resisting NATO's imperialism.

Also, if you're going to bring morality into this, then you can't only talk about Russia invading, you also needs to weight in the ethnic cleansing Ukraine was doing, their Nazi military that are now officially recognized, their rehabilitation of figures like Estepan Bandera and their erasing of Soviet symbols in the country.

Since people seem interested in the morality angle, allow me to introduce U. of Macao philosophy professor Hans-Georg Moeller.

• 📺 Why Sam Harris is Wrong - A Critique of Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape"
• 📺 The Problem with Sam Harris' "Morality"
• 📺 If Morality Exists Everything Is Permitted. (Q&A)
• 📖 The Moral Fool: A Case for Amorality (interview)

I think what NATO did to Ghaddafi explains Russia's behavior. They could no longer treat NATO as a defensive alliance, it proved itself to be an arm of imperialism. If they allowed Ukraine to become a staging ground for NATO bombers it would be begging for color revolution. They couldn't just wait, they had to act preemptively.

There's a lot to dislike about modern Russia but I'm not sure why a Marxist would strongly object to them for being at war with a US aligned, neo-nazi aligned NATO proxy that was running an ethnic cleansing campaign right on the Russian border.