#arm Ukraine to win

[dontforgetukraine]

Defending your loved ones, on your sovereign land, in response to a foreign invader, is not a pro-war stance. It is a moral obligation and a legal right. Calling for appeasement - when the chances of foreign soldiers kicking down your door and taking your children are zero - is not a brave stance. #ArmUkraineToWinNow —Adrian Petriw

[wistfulpoltergeist]

Let me put it absolutely clear. Helping Israel by hitting Iran missiles and drones in the air area of third countries (of the THIRD COUNTRIES) isn't an escalation. But hitting russian missiles and (Iranian, btw) drones in the Ukraine air area to save Ukrainian lives is suddenly an escalation. Don't tell me you really care for Ukraine and stand with Ukraine and etc, US politics. Because you don't.

[anastasiamaru]

They are our warriors💙Our pride💛

Every day they risk their lives for our freedom...

Велика Подяка нашим Захисникам та Захисницям

Слава Героям України🇺🇦

Glory to the Heroes of Ukraine

[abrahamvanhelsings]

going fucking insane why is everyone i talk to 100% on board with the rapidly increasing militarization of our society. 'yes but russia! we need to protect ukraine and europe' listen i understand the sentiment. but has any situation in this world ever been resolved by an arms race. no. in fact things have always gotten worse. meanwhile you're advocating for the further establishment of the state's monopoly on violence and the expansion of military activity in every single aspect of our society, physically as well as ideologically. get well soon i guess.

[twpsyn-who]

Talking a little bit about 'boycotting Eurovision' under Keep Reading, feel free to scroll down if is not what you want to see.

The most used argument on the matter of banning Israel from Eurovision is the fact that Russia got banned from Eurovision, which is the worst argument anyone could bring.

Kindly reminder that Russia didn't get banned because of the war with Ukraine. Russia got banned because many countries has threatened to withdraw from the competition. Sadly, that's a big difference.

Yes, the countries has threatened to withdraw because they support Ukraine and see Russia as the party in the wrong. That was their reason. EBU's reason for banning Russian was because those countries threatened to withdraw, not because the war was bad and Russia must be stopped.

This situation isn't the same. Why? Because many countries support Israel in their genocide. Because this time around Palestine is the party in the wrong. Because we're taught to believe that Israel isn't in the wrong here.**

Boycotting Eurovision won't work. There are people out there who don't know the truth and want to watch Eurovision. There are people out there who don't care and will watch Eurovision regardless of the situation. There are people out there who, despite having the facts, still don't see Israel as the bad guy in this situation and will watch Eurovision. Sadly, boycotting won't work unless everyone does it.

The only way Israel will get banned, in my opinion, is by going through the same thing as Russia. If other countries threatened to withdraw- and not any countries, but the ones investing the most in Eurovision, then yes. That will get Israel banned.

Otherwise? The only thing we do is hurt artists that don't deserve it. Artists who use Eurovision as a way to get more exposure and experience. Artists who deserve to be heard.

Don't vote for Israel's entry. Don't stream their song either. Heck, turn off the TV when is their turn to perform.

**This whole situation (the war, not Eurovision) isn't only black and white. Civilians die daily because of this, all of them from both sides. Innocent people who has no fault. Let's not forget that

[exhaled-spirals]

« Almost all Americans believed when the full-scale invasion began that Ukraine would immediately collapse under Russian might, and that Zelens'kyi would flee the country. But he did not. His physical courage in remaining in Kyiv, an echo of the physical courage shown by millions of Ukrainians, changed the overall situation. Because Ukrainians resisted, western arms began to flow. The courage of Ukrainians made possible an American and European policy to hold back Russian aggression. That same Zelens'kyi, the man who was brave enough to stay and lead his country when the Russians were approaching the capital and the assassination squads were already there, was yesterday made the subject of a public attempt at humiliation by Americans. No doubt Ukrainians should express their thanks to Americans. As they do. But it is illogical, to say the least, for Americans not to thank Ukrainians, or to treat their courageous president as an object of contempt. The coercive ritual of gratitude hides from Americans the basic reality of what has happened these last three years.

During this war, Ukraine has delivered to the United States strategic gains that the United States could not have achieved on its own. Ukrainian resistance gave hope to people defending democracies around the world. Ukrainian soldiers were defending the basic principle of international law, which is that states are sovereign and that borders should not be changed by aggression. Ukraine in effect fulfilled the entire NATO mission, absorbing a full-scale Russian attack essentially on its own. It has deterred Chinese aggression over Taiwan, by showing how difficult offensive operations can be. It has slowed the spread of nuclear weapons, by proving that a conventional power can resist a nuclear power in a conventional war. Throughout the war, Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and the Ukrainians have resisted the nuclear bluff. Should they be allowed to be defeated, nuclear weapons will spread around the world, both to those who wish to bluff with them, and those who will need them to resist the bluff.

Yesterday Vance and Trump repeated familiar Russian propaganda. One example was Trump's claim that it was the Ukrainians who, by resisting Russia, were risking "World War Three." The truth is exactly the opposite. By abandoning Ukraine, Trump is risking a terrible escalation and, indeed, a world war. Everything that Ukraine has done these last three years can be reversed. Now that the Trump administration has chosen to throw American power to Russia's side, Russia could indeed win the war. (This was always Russia's only chance, as the Russians themselves well knew, and openly said.) In this scenario of an American-backed Russian victory, opened yesterday by American choices in the American capital, the horrible losses extend far beyond Ukraine. Zelens'kyi quite sensibly made the point that the consequences of the war could extend to Americans. This was, in a sense, overly modest: Ukrainian resistance has thus far spared Americans such consequences. He said so very gently, and was yelled at for it -- which is itself quite telling. The Americans have a sense of what they are unleashing upon the world by allying with Russia, and they made noise to disguise that. »

— Timothy Snyder, "The War Trump Chooses"

[readandwriteclub]

We get our news from TikTok now that MSM have all kissed the ring to become official state media?

Trudeau's not wrong.

Also, I will never stop reminding that, for all Trump47's bitching about US-Mexico and US-Canada trade right now, the USMCA is Trump45's trade deal that he was so fucking proud of — wtf???

[sayruq]

Today was a big for the resistance. It seems people were right, they were waiting for Biden to leave so they can respond to the Ah Ahli Hospital massacre (the tweets below are arranged from the earliest reports I saw to the latest in order to show the coordination between different groups in different countries and the escalation)

Like I said, a big day for the resistance

And I see no signs of things slowing down

The Palestinian resistance has a list of objectives for this operation including damaging Israel's economy, forcing Israel citizens to flee the country, and slowing down immigration to Israel in the long term (because that leads to new settlements)

In other news, Biden's bloodlust was enough to disgust an arms dealer.

Several of his staff have also expressed discomfort with the administration's choices the past few weeks

Nonetheless, American troops have been told to prepare for deployment

The past few days I've been pointing out how Russia has gone from pro Israel to carefully neutral to increasingly critical of Israel and now we have this.

I'm so glad that Israel has continued to shoot itself on its foot by isolating itself from Russia and China

Russia is actively intervening to ensure that America and its allies can't use the Black Sea to counter the resistance in West Asia which is a big deal

So far, all signs are pointing to a regional conflict

This has to be a huge blow to Israel seeing so many countries, even a NATO nation, coming together to ensure that it can't annihilate Palestine.

More importantly, it shows that Palestine does not stand alone.

[doomdoomofdoom]

If you've been boycotting Eurovision, you may have missed out on how bad it truly was, so here are a few events in no particular order:

The opening act of the semi-finals was Eric Saade, a swedish-palestinian singer who participated in Eurovision 2011. He wore a keffiyeh, a palestinian headdress, around his arm like a wristband.

Despite not making any political statements or drawing attention to his accessory, he was reprimanded by the EBU for "compromising the non-political nature of the event".

During their semi-final performance, the Irish contestant had the word "ceasefire" in old irish runes painted on their face. They were ordered to change it for the final, as it was deemed too political.

The contestant from Israel was not allowed to mingle with the other contestants, due to supposed security risks.

During an Interview, she was asked if she felt any concerns over her participation potentially endangering the event and the people present. The host told her she did not have to answer this question. Dutch contestant 'Joost' asked "why not?"

Joost, while not openly antagonizing the Israeli contestant, has made covert critical remarks about the EBUs decision to allow Israel to participate.

On Friday, the day before the Finale, Joost was investigated by the swedish police for a supposed incident where he threatened an EBU crew member. Thursday, a female camera operator had followed him off-stage to continue filming, even though there was an agreement not to film him off-stage. After she ignored his requests to stop, he threatened her with some sort of gesture.

Joost was disqualified mere hours before the finale. He was slotted to perform just before Israel and considered a favorite and potential winner.

The show itself did not address his disqualification. The dutch entry was simply skipped with no further comment.

Israeli broadcaster KAN was confirmed to have broken EBU rules during their coverage of the Irish act in the Semifinal. The commentator spoke negatively about their act, condemning the very scary goth aesthetic, and noting their willingness to criticize Israel's actions.

Despite Irish contestant Bambie Thug lodging a complaint with the EBU, there was no penalty or other repercussion.

If you were hoping that the event itself would turn into some sort of protest, I have to disappoint you:

Despite rumors of other contestants dropping out over Joost's disqualification, all of them performed.

There was audible booing every time Israel was on-screen, including their performance, announcement of points, and every time they received points. There was equally audible cheering.

No contestant or spokesperson directly addressed the ""controversy"" (read: ongoing genocide being artwashed), although very few made covert remarks about peace, love, dignity, and equality.

The most explicit it got was the Austrian spokesperson, saying something along the lines of "It's hard to find only positive words in a time where heartlessness prevails. But we hope everyone can unite through music and show that everyone deserves to be treated equally"

No one stormed on stage or held up a palestinian flag or anything, if you were hoping for that. I certainly was.

Israel gave its 12 points (both Jury and public) to Luxembourg. The singer is half-israeli and born in Jerusalem.

Jury votes mostly ignored Israel, netting them a total of 52 points through jury votes, which put them somewhere in the middle of the scoreboard. Norway, Cyprus, and Germany awarded them 8 points each, making them the main contributors.

In contrast, Israel received 323 points from the public voting. They were second only to Croatia with 337. 15 public votings, including "rest of the world" awarded Israel their 12 points, more than any other country would receive. The only countries not to award any points to Israel in the public vote were Croatia and Ukraine.

Israel thereby placed 5th out of 25.

But hey, at least the winner (Switzerland) was nonbinary, diversity win amirite. Notably, they had to smuggle in their pride flag, since EBU guidelines only allow flags of participating countries and the rainbow flag. (This is also why palestinian flags were not allowed. It's not a new rule, but they certainly weren't going to start bending it now.)

If there's one thing to take away from this: Do not ever think the rest of the world is on your side, just because your social media is. The rest of the world has shown their allegiance, and it lies with Israel and Genocide.

Do not stop fighting for what is right.

[ketrindoll]

As someone from the Baltic states it fills me with absolute dread that my life and everything I hold dear depends entirely how smart Americans will be in their upcoming election.

To the point that if I won a lottery I wouldn't even spend a dime till November, as Trump winning would likely result in russian invasion and total destruction of everyone and everything I know.

Like it or not, the US really is the most important country in the world, because total shift towards global dictatorships or balance of democracies depends entirely on who will win this election. If Trump wins: Taiwan, Ukraine, whole Eastern Europe, and every other country where right-wingers are getting more popular would be fucked. If Biden wins, we still have a chance until the next election cycle.

Without the US, democracies won't be able to do shit to defend themselves either. America is a democracy on steroids. It has most nukes and supplies arms to other allies. If suddenly Trump started selling US weaponry to China or russia - it's game over.

And it all hangs on this:

[ray-winters]

we just wanna hear any hcs you have for our boy misch

Alright, y’all asked for it, buckle up:

Mischa makes most of his money from an apprenticeship he has at the only tattoo parlor in Uranium City. He gets paid a bit, and on top of that he gets free tattoos (which is where he got all of his from). Plus it keeps him out of the house and also pisses his very traditionally valued adoptive parents off. Win win.

My Mischa only has tattoos on his right arm bc I am left handed so HE is left handed- he does his own tattoos mostly. He was going to start a sleeve on his left arm after he got home from the fall fair.

Speaking of his tattoos; the first tattoo he gave himself was one that says “Bad Egg” w/devil horns and a devil tail. “Bad Egg” was something his adoptive dad would frequently call him, so it was his way of reclaiming the name for himself, and pissing off his adoptive parents bc they were viciously anti-tattoo

He has another tattoo of a crescent moon with a “ - T” next to it bc he asked Talia to draw him something to put on his body. She drew the moon because of the time difference between Kyiv & Uranium, any time she sees the moon she knows she’s going to hear from Mischa soon. So she began to associate Mischa with the moon.

My personal fav tattoo I gave Mischa is that stereotypical “S” where you draw 6 lines and connect them. This is brand fucking new to Mischa, he had never seen it before, and he thought it was dope af, so he tattooed it on himself immediately.

He has a tattoo of a pot leaf, but it’s not very good so everyone always thinks it’s a Canadian maple leaf. Which drives him up the wall.

Mischa has taken in a small black cat that would hang around the tattoo parlor and would occasionally follow him home. It lives with him in the basement, it comes and goes, and it is a well kept hidden secret.

Mischa hangs at Noel’s house…a lot. Noel’s mom lets him stay the night often bc she knows about his home life and thinks it’s disgraceful, so she takes care of him.

Mischa was class clown and relatively popular at his high school in Ukraine- which is the polar opposite of how he’s received at St. Cassian’s. People either are afraid of him, or they try to make fun of him, so either way he has found himself alone most of the time.

He’d never admit it, but Mischa does actually enjoy hanging with the kids in the choir. He gets to hang with his bestie, Noel. He admires Constance’s patience and kindness, he thinks she’s probably the best person in Uranium. While he and Ocean get on each other’s nerves, there’s a small part of him that secretly looks forward to their fights. But only a little bit. He doesn’t notice Ricky is there until after the accident, and then spends a large chunk of his time trying to rectify that by getting to know/encourage Ricky.

He and Noel became friends bc some of the boys who were trying to bully Mischa were also bullying Noel. When Mischa was about to start defending Noel, Noel ended up proving he can defend himself with his quick wit rather than fists. This is a trait that Mischa admires a lot, so they pretty much joined forces that day and they’ve been the dynamic duo of Uranium City ever since.

Mischa has pretty severe abandonment issues and it prone to panic attacks because of it. He’s more of a “suffer in silence” kind of guy, so it takes someone with patience and kindness like Constance to give him some tips on how to calm himself down. I.E. remembering a calming situation like “climbing back into your bed in the morning and feeling the heat left over from your body.”

Mischa had been kicked out of a few schools in Uranium, and his adoptive figures (they’re not really parents, barely guardians) gave him one last chance at St. Cassian’s. When he was caught stealing the communion wine, Father Marcus told him he HAD to join the choir and that he HAD to at the very least sing at the competition. Which is why he doesn’t do any choreo during the opening number.

Addendum- he does ONE move during the opening number. The finger wag on “oh no no” because Noel came up with that move, and after Ocean tried to cut it, Mischa said it was the only move he’d do even if it was cut. So he forced her to keep the move in via malicious compliance.

Over the course of the musical, there isn’t really a moment where he thinks he’s gonna win. His life wasn’t fair, why should his death be any different.

He thinks Jane is THE coolest and THE most metal thing he’s ever seen. After she finishes her number, his heart is effectively broken for her.

When Constance punches Ocean, Mischa doesn’t have the “FUCK YEAH” reaction that you’d expect. It’s actually met with some sadness. He’s always encouraging Constance to stick up for herself, and to not take Ocean’s shit. But, he respects that she has patience and kindness. When Constance punches Ocean, he almost sees it as a failure on his part.

The reason in my head why Mischa and Ocean feud so much is because they remind each other of one another’s parents. Ocean is the poster child of excellence in Uranium, Mischa’s adoptive parents have said more than once that they wish he could “be like that Ocean girl” - on the contrary, Ocean has caught Mischa smoking weed before. His incredibly radically liberal world view reminds her of her hippy parents. They get that anger out at them on each other. But at the end of the show, they both have a deeper respect for one another. Ocean for Mischa because she sees the real him, who is gentle & compassionate. Mischa for Ocean because she does the most selfless thing she could possibly do, which he respects infinitely.

I’m sure I have more but these are the HC’s that immediately came to mind. This is what makes Majestic Rep’s Mischa, Mischa.

[wistfulpoltergeist]

I'm alive for two years of this war now, thanks to Armed Forces of Ukraine. Thanks to everyone who joined, helped, and supported my country. I know we will win, but there's a lot of weird and terrifying sh*t ahead. Who knows, I may not get through it alive at the end, but if I will... Damn. That would be awesome.

Тримаймося, мої любі котики. Знаєте, мені якось ще в 2014 наснився сон про те, як війна скінчилася. Як ми всі поверталися додому. Ми були дітьми, що воювали проти велетня. Але ми перемогли. А велете��я розчленували. Лишилася тільки голова, яка мала страждати 100 років. Дивний то був сон. Та тепер я знаю про що він.

[anastasiamaru]

Donbas is Ukraine

russians cannot take away our desire to live

[mariacallous]

A month after Franklin D. Roosevelt won the 1940 presidential election, he called for legislation to ramp up military aid to countries fighting Nazi Germany. Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. Within months, Britain and the Soviet Union were pounding Adolf Hitler’s forces with U.S. weapons and other equipment.

Now that Americans have voted to return Donald Trump to the White House, the situation risks flipping into reverse: After Jan. 20, 2025, the United States may abandon its European allies to Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s fascist war machine.

During his campaign, Trump said he will “not give a penny to Ukraine.” Part of his plan to end the war “in one day” is that he would “tell [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky, no more. You got to make a deal.” But if Russia is allowed to conquer and subjugate Ukraine, it would only be a matter of which democracy gets colonized next by a neighboring dictatorship: Poland, the Baltic States, Moldova, or Taiwan.

Thus, over the next 75 days, Congress and the Biden administration face an urgent historic mission to help Ukraine get as many weapons as possible before a possible withdrawal of U.S. support.

U.S. President Joe Biden has directed the Defense Department to draw down all remaining Ukrainian security aid that Congress has appropriated by the end of his term. It’s not clear if the Pentagon could supply much more weaponry than that by Inauguration Day, even if it received additional funding from Congress.

Instead, the way to promptly fund more arms is to bankroll Ukrainian procurement of U.S. weapons. Specifically, Biden should request, and Congress should pass, another supplemental funding bill on a similar scale as the one in April, which included $60.8 billion for Ukraine. The new supplemental should authorize the administration to spend any amount of the aid—up to the full amount—to cut a massive check to the Ukrainian government with the stipulation that Ukraine use the funds to purchase U.S.-made weapons.

Sending Ukraine $60 billion to spend on weapons would be entirely consistent with the strategy that the Biden administration had been preparing in case of a Trump win. One of Biden’s main initiatives has been to push the G-7 to give $50 billion in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, deliberately structuring the transfer to get out the door before Jan. 20 so that Trump cannot stop it. Biden originally wanted to seize and give to Kyiv all $300 billion of Russia’s frozen money, but the Europeans could not be convinced. The administration has also shown its willingness to throw U.S. budgetary resources into the mix: When the $50 billion was blocked by the Hungarian government, the White House engineered a clever way of guaranteeing the money through the Treasury Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The key political challenge, however, could be getting House Speaker Mike Johnson to support this legislation during the lame duck period, when he will probably be preparing to run for another term as speaker. This may require some hardball maneuvering by some of the many pro-Ukraine Republicans in the House. It would be much easier, of course, if Trump quietly goes along with it, like he did with the last supplemental.

The United States would not be the first government to fund Ukrainian arms procurement. Denmark paved the way this year with a grant that finances contracts between Ukraine and defense manufacturers. Denmark and Ukraine developed a transparent set of financial controls that include factory site visits, validation of delivery, and auditing processes. All sides regard this pilot program as so successful that other allies are pulling out their checkbooks to join in on the action.

Americans’ tax dollars would be safely held by the most credibly reformed and reputably led wing of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry: the defense procurement agency. In the early weeks of the full-scale invasion, when Russian forces were bearing down on Kyiv and heavy Western weapons hadn’t yet arrived, Ukraine’s desperate Defense Ministry called up illicit intermediaries, begging them to help buy up old stocks of Soviet-type munitions on the notoriously opaque and fragmented international arms market. But over the following months, as Western aid started flowing, Ukraine’s strategy shifted to building a clean, transparent pipeline for buying weapons straight from producers.

Established in August 2022, the defense procurement agency is now run by Maryna Bezrukova, a seasoned reformer who previously cleaned up procurement at Ukraine’s national electricity company. To be her deputy, Bezrukova hired Ukraine’s most reputably independent corruption investigator: Artem Sytnyk, the former head of the state National Anti-Corruption Bureau. With these sheriffs in town, the surest way for even the most powerful Ukrainians to go to jail is to try to corruptly make money off weapons acquisitions.

Under this reformist leadership, the defense procurement agency is aggressively cutting out intermediaries by contracting directly with arms manufacturers. The clearest sign of success is that excluded arms dealers and their cronies are attacking Bezrukova with threatening messages, smear campaigns, and doxing on Telegram. Most recently, these intermediaries tried to sideline Bezrukova by getting Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov to merge her agency into another one—and fire her in the process. That announcement triggered such strong pushback by NATO and Ukrainian civil society that the minister canceled the planned reorganization. Instead, with support from Ukraine’s allies, the ministry formed a new supervisory board of reputable experts to oversee the procurement agency.

Any U.S. legislation that funds weapons contracts arranged by Ukraine’s defense procurement agency should come with one additional condition: Before Kyiv receives any money, it must enact legislation mandating the existence of the agency, safeguarding the independence of its supervisory board, and most importantly, prohibiting the defense minister from firing the agency head without a concurring decision by the supervisory board.

Beyond the strategic benefits, this approach could create jobs for Americans during Trump’s second term, largely in states that voted for him. Unlike military aid provided by Europe or allocated by NATO, U.S. funding would come right back home: to Northrop Grumman’s gun truck production line in Arizona, General Dynamics’ artillery shell facility in Texas, Raytheon’s missile factory in Alabama, and Lockheed Martin’s F-16 plant in South Carolina.

To prevent the Trump administration from using executive authority to block the export of weapons procured by Ukraine under the program, Congress should insert one exemption to the Buy American requirement: If the U.S. government ends up blocking exports, Ukraine would be free to redirect the funds to non-U.S. arms manufacturers.

Just as vital as the original Lend-Lease Act, this legislation could be called the Buy American Weapons Act. And it would keep the United States on the right side of history against the imperial armies that are once again on the march.

[mesetacadre]

I'd disagree with "No working class in any country has anything to get out of either side winning." when it comes to Russia ngl. The working class of Russia doesn't benefit if the US was able to militarily succeed or worse balkanize Russia. Also, the people on Donbas and Crimea have chosen to throw their weight behind Russia because of the oppression they were already facing from the Ukrainian state far before the special military operation began. Dogmatic internationalism like this is what leads to groups like cpusa being functionally useless to actually advance any critique outside of "both sides must defeat their bourgeoisie" which in practice just becomes anarchism or at worse wrt to Palestine fully opposing national liberation struggles or refusing to take sides w/ Venezuela's oppositional communist party. Hopefully this comes off well, because it's meant as an earnest discussion. Highly recc the interview Rania Khalek did with one of the leaders of the Russian Communist Party on this topic.

context

Yes, the working class in Russia will suffer much more were the US to break Russia up (which a victory in Ukraine does not entail but that's beyond the point). Does that mean NATO's working class will benefit from it? or that Russia's proletariat will benefit from their victory? You're right, you're not thinking like a communist, you're thinking like a campist unable to see the interests of the working class in the entire world lies not with this or that dictatorship of the bourgeoisie but with their own self-government free of exploitation. Are we supposed to be tailists here? Are we actually meant to uncritically follow what x section of a working class ""chooses"" in an inter-imperialist context? Yes, Russians in Crimea and Donbass prefer to be under Russia, as do the Estonian people largely prefer to put their weight behind the fascist worshipping Estonian government. There is a difference between focusing on the criticism and struggle against our own bourgeoisies, and simply calling for the other side to win. You're making the exact same assumption the propagandists of NATO make when they label internationalists as Russian chauvinists, they distort revolutionary defeatism into "psyops" by the other side, and you're actually holding that position. Communism is not about taking the majority position of an arbitrary section of the working class because it just so happens to not be what our own bourgeoisie says. It's a revolutionary position, able to identify the revolutionary intuitions in the working class and push it to its farthest extremes through the framework of communism. You're following the exact same logic the patsoc groups follow when they decide to be the most transphobic and racist, because big swaths of the working class are transphobic and racist.

In what world is the defense of the interests of the working class in opposition to this or that bourgeois alternatives functionally anarchist? are you under the impression that working for a dictatorship of the proletariat is anarchism because we oppose bourgeois states? This is vulgar to an extreme degree. "Dogmatic internationalism", what a phrase. Is it dogmatic internationalism when the KKE blocks an arms shipment to Ukraine? is it anarchic when communists in Europe and the US aren't contrarian for opposition's sake and actually develop a position independent of this or that dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? Get real. What fantastical leap of logic to assume this automatically leads to holding left communist position regarding national liberation movements, if anything it's the constant confusion opportunists create around Russia's capitalist interests that leads people to assume it's comparable to the Palestinian genocide. You're arguing against a mirror.

I partly agree with you wrt to Lenin's imperialism, it is an unfinished definition. But "unipolarism" is not even close to an actually materialist approach. Are the contradictions between different capitalist factions suddenly fundamentally different because there isn't a "balance"? How exactly does this make the "underdog" capitalist share common interests with the working class he exploits and sends to a meat grinder? Do we support small businesses too because they have certain opposing interests to the Amazon and Google monopolies?

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ari Drennen at Ari's Threads:

When authoritarian regimes collapse, it often looks sudden—leaders flee, governments dissolve, and the state unravels in real-time. But collapse is rarely spontaneous. More often, it’s the result of a slow, self-inflicted erosion of power, set in motion when leaders overestimate their own support and push too far. This was the case in Afghanistan in 2021, where the U.S.-backed government, built on external military support rather than genuine legitimacy, crumbled almost overnight. It was also the case in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where a war meant to demonstrate strength instead exposed military and political weakness. And it was the case in South Korea’s 2024 martial law crisis, where a government that assumed it could impose military rule without consequence was swiftly removed from power. Again and again, regimes that assume their grip on power is unshakable discover—too late—that their own overreach is what brings them down.

Overconfidence Leads to Overreach

Authoritarian regimes don’t collapse because of one bad decision. They collapse because of a pattern of miscalculations—each one widening the gap between the government and the people until the state is too hollow to stand.

[...]

Not all resistance looks like street protests or armed insurgencies. Some of the most effective opposition happens quietly, in ways that authoritarian governments struggle to contain. During World War II, the OSS Simple Sabotage Field Manual outlined ways that civilians could disrupt enemy governments—not with bombs, but with small, deliberate inefficiencies. Workers were told to misfile documents, delay projects, introduce small errors that, over time, would make the entire system grind to a halt. That same principle applied to Hong Kong’s 2014 protests, where a leaderless, encrypted messaging-driven movement made it nearly impossible for authorities to arrest key organizers. Every time police tried to crack down, new protest flash mobs would appear elsewhere. Digital resistance allowed the movement to stay ahead of law enforcement for months. In South Korea’s 2024 crisis, protesters flooded government hotlines, overloaded digital reporting systems, and created so much bureaucratic noise that state enforcement became nearly impossible. The government couldn’t keep up with digital disruptions, and by the time authorities responded, resistance had already moved to a different platform or tactic. Once a government loses the ability to enforce its own rules, even in the most basic ways, its power begins to slip—sometimes faster than even the people resisting expect.

[...]

Regimes Collapse from Within as Much as from Without

Governments don’t just fall because of external pressure. They fall because of their own mistakes. They push too hard, alienating even those who once supported them. They purge too many people, creating enemies where there were none. They assume military force can solve political problems, only to find that wars are easier to start than to win. They mistake silence for support, failing to see that silence is often just the absence of a safe way to speak. And then one day, the silence shatters, and the regime collapses so fast that even its leaders are caught off guard. Regimes that look stable on the surface often collapse the fastest. Russia hasn’t fallen, but it has been plunged into a financially ruinous war, losing soldiers and resources at an unsustainable rate. What was supposed to be a quick military victory has instead forced the country into a long, grinding conflict that is weakening its global influence and economic stability. Iraq was supposed to become a stable democracy, but de-Baathification fueled years of insurgency. South Korea’s government thought it could impose martial law, but within weeks, mass resistance forced it out.

Ari Drennen wrote a solid column on how autocratic regimes accelerate their collapse as a result of their drunken hubris, as we have seen in South Korea and Russia. This also applies to regimes that seemingly look stable.