this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
37 points (95.1% liked)
GenZedong
4913 readers
118 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Most likely.
Like, a pro-Russian one? Most unlikely.
Strategically speaking, Russia needs the most industrialized regions and the entire shoreline. Demilitarization of the rest too. Which way what remains of "independent" Ukraine leans doesn't matter a lot at that point, only that it remains. But it might be better for Russia, if it's westward, so that Russia doesn't have to rebuild at least that. Neutral status on paper though.
I should clarify. That's because the Russian government is clearly trying to do it "right". SMO isn't breaking international law, which is why there aren't any sanctions, like, UN ones, only unilateral restrictions from individual countries(which are, ironically, illegal). Annexation of Ukraine wasn't in the declared goals at any point. And leaving it be, albeit demilitarized, would be the final nail in the coffin of already ridiculous genocide allegations. Good for propaganda in a different way too. Independent Ukraine is yet another entity people in the West that have a good idea of what's going on can point at as an example of NATO using up it's supposes allies and leaving them the worse for wear, whereas annexing the entire thing just adds to the rUsSiAn ImPeRiAlIsT cOnQuErErS narrative, even if Ukraine asks for it till the end.
Wait, can you tell me more about how the SMO isn't breaking international law? That seems interesting.
Article 51 of the UN charter allows for collective self-defense. Russia invoked this article when they accepted the call for aid from the Donbass republics in 2022. The Donbass republics were clearly under attack by the Kiev regime. Also the right of the Donbass to declare independence (and Russia to recognize them, thus legalizing collective self-defense) is enshrined in the UN charter as the right of peoples to self-determination.
Russia used the exact same legal argument that NATO used to break off Kosovo from Serbia. The difference being that NATO was lying about Serbia committing genocide which invalidates their entire argument, and Russia wasn't lying about Ukraine's ethnic cleansing intentions in the Donbass, we have Ukrainian politicians, military leaders, and nationalist media figures on record admitting to this.
(Also there was never a referendum in Kosovo to legitimize their independence like there was in the Donbass; the self-appointed "government" there simply declared it and then ethnically cleansed the Serb population...but that is a story for another day.)
What would you suggest reading to learn more about the Serbian conflict for a nuanced understanding?
To start with, Michael Parenti's "To Kill A Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia". The NATO attack on Serbia is downstream of the deliberate destruction of Yugoslavia by the West.
Thank you
If I read Article 51 correctly, in this part: "[...] if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations [...]" it could be argued that the Donbass republics were/are not members of the UN.
Or do i misunderstand something?
And right before that it says "nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense".
Articles 3 and 4 of the "Treaties of Friendship and Cooperation and Mutual Assistance" which Russia signed with the DPR and LPR, and which the State Duma ratified when it recognized their independence on February 22nd, enshrine a commitment to mutual defence. These are essentially articles which function as NATO's commitment to treat an attack upon one member as an attack upon all.
Russia is a UN member and its right to collective self-defense applies. But UN member or not, states have the right to defend themselves and to ask for protection. Remember the "responsibility to protect" rhetoric that NATO used in Yugoslavia? Why would Russia not have that responsibility towards the people of the Donbass? The main point here, which the West always tries to obscure, is that the Donbass Republics were under attack and their people were facing an existential threat.
Thank you for the answer. I have regular discussions with a friend and he still has the opinion "russia bad". In my country the media never gets tired to speak and write of the "russias illegal aggression war". This exact wording is in every article and interview it's obvious something is wrong.
It's the same with "islamist terror organization Hamas" in every article, always the same words.
Yup. Whenever they keep repeating the same phrase over and over again, you know they are trying to turn a lie into "truth" by pure repetition.
The most obvious is when they speak about an "unprovoked full-scale invasion". The reason they have to keep repeating that over and over again is because the reality is the exact opposite.
There has never been a conflict more provoked than this one, and even the West's own strategy papers, those that are mainly meant for internal consumption, admit they were provoking Russia. It's only the public facing mainstream media, that which is designed to brainwash the public and manufacture consent, which still pretends otherwise.
It is also extremely obvious that the qualifier "full-scale" is just meant to trigger an emotional response. It's purely arbitrary. Objectively speaking it means nothing. Is Russia using its full force? No. If it was, Kiev would look like Gaza.
Is there such a thing as "just a little invasion"? Also no. Even though the West also likes to pretend that there is such a thing whenever they talk of "limited strikes" against the targets of their aggression, like when they bombed Syria, or when they recently bombed Iran.
And the most dystopian fact about all of this is how much literally all the media in the West are in lockstep on this. They literally all use the same language and the same phrases, almost as if there is a co-ordinated campaign (which there is) and the talking points are being fed by the state to all the outlets (which they are). No deviation from this line is tolerated.
This is what was known in Nazi Germany as "Gleichgeschaltete Medien", media in total lockstep with the state.
Seconded
How sure are we that Russia’s SMO isn’t violating international law? This caught my eye, because this would be an chef’s kiss talking point against the Russophobic liberals if it were true, but unfortunately all the evidence I could find didn’t point in that direction.
A UN general assembly voted 141-5 (35 abstentions) to demand Russia withdraw all military forces. As well as the ICJ ordering Russia to “immediately suspend” military operations in Ukraine.
The lack of UN sanctions on Russia is because Russia has veto power in the UNSC and has exercised it, so theoretically any of the 5 permanent members can commit crimes without being sanctioned as long as they use their veto power. Note that while the general assembly has condemned it, their actions are generally not legally binding. A better example is the general assembly of US ongoing blockade of Cuba, but nothing happens because US veto power on the UNSC.
As for the unilateral sanctions, there is ongoing debate over whether those are illegal, with some bodies like the Hague claiming they are illegal, as they bypass the UNSC, but there’s obviously the issue of one of the UNSC members themselves committing the initial crime unilaterally and vetoing resulting sanctions.
All of this to say that NATO of course is the ultimate evil in this tragic scenario, but I don’t think you could objectively say that the Russian SMO is within international law, even if it’s hand was illegally forced by NATO. If the point can be argued, however, then I’d be very curious to learn! Because that would be an excellent talking point against Russophobic liberals. ___
Unilateral sanctions are definitely illegal.
As for the General Assembly voting to condemn Russia, they did so under extreme pressure from the West in 2022. The same goes for rulings by international institutions like the ICJ. All are vulnerable to threats, blackmail, political and media pressure. More recent UN votes have actually swung in favor of Russia. The global south is clearly on Russia's side.
The fact remains that Russia's intervention is legal according to article 51 of the UN charter pertaining to collective self-defense. Russia invoked this article when they accepted the call for aid from the newly recognized Donbass republics in 2022, which had the right to secede according to the internationally enshrined right of all people to self-determination, and which were clearly under attack by Ukrainian forces.
This is one-to-one NATO's Kosovo playbook, except it was actually legitimate this time and not backed by false claims. The West calling Russia's intervention illegal is tantamount to calling their own actions in Serbia illegal. The global south can see the hypocrisy.
Upvoted :)
So yeah i totally agree with your angle here. So my reasoning to strictly adhering to international law is because, in a perfect world, a country which violates it is punished. And because the US commits the overwhelming majority of the war crimes, it would face the most sanctions under such a system. Feel free to let me know if you disagree, I am far from an expert on this conflict so I’m not gonna pretend to be :)
It's the good old point about the West having "rules for thee...". I just surprised you with the angle, I guess.
I see what you are saying about the five untouchables, but cases against them happened. Just as political statements, with no hope of result. No one even tried sanctions this time though.
ICJ case was a circus on three levels: Ukraine literally did a strawman by claiming that Russia justifies the invasion with Genocide Convention, when Russia openly invoked article 51 of the UN charter; the ruling had little to nothing to do with the application; was unintentional self-trolling by the US diplomats that no doubt worked on the case, because... I'll save it for Christmas.
That is...not at all how law works. Mob justice is a criminal offence in most countries. Probably in all countries.
I'm not saying Russia had UN mandate to invade. What I am saying is that Russia made all the moves and got diametrically opposed results to those of NATO. Russia recognised LPR and DPR, signed agreements with them, even the blind OSCE monkeys in Donbass registered hundreds of ceasefire violations by Ukraine and only about two weeks later Putin came out with his stand up bit.
Which brings me to Christmas. The UN didn't sanction Yugoslavia bombings. But ICJ ruled they were humanitarian intervention. Under what? Under Genocide Convention. ~~Need I remind that Milošević was aquited by Hague tribunal after death?~~
Neither spirit nor the letter are broken. Rulings of an organization headquartered in NYC that can't give a straight answer when asked about the US blatantly stealing oil in Syria are another matter.
So no new talking points for you, comrade) Not really. Just another angle to ridicule the so called rules based order.
Upvoted :)
I get what you’re saying! My approach to this is to carefully craft the narrative so that it can not be used to excuse the war crimes committed by the West. So for example I think BRICS should unilaterally impose sanctions on the US for its war crimes, and I don’t think that should be illegal for this to happen. Even if it means once in a while the US can sanction and isolate itself more on the world stage, whatever.
So the reasoning is, if we say the sanctions on Russia are unilateral and therefore illegal, then wouldn’t we also have to concede that the US can commit a crime and not be subject to unilateral sanctions from China / Russia because the UNSC does not vote in favor of it (bc of US veto)? Adhering to this narrative also benefits in the long term, because the US commits many more crimes than Russia / China and therefore would be subject to the most sanctions under this reasoning.
What are your thoughts on this? Also a disclaimer but I do admit ignorance on the Russo Ukraine conflict so I’m not going to pretend to be an authority here.
(And yeah, sounds like the UN is compromised. I totally agree there.)
My thoughts are that international law is such a mess now that it doesn't matter at all any more. It was selectively disregarded for years by the West, Russia, China and some others have been proving both that it doesn't work as written and that precedents set by the West somehow don't apply to others, and now all we're waiting for is complete breakdown.
I don't know if the UN goes the way of the League of Nations as a result of WWIII or if this breakdown takes some other form, but I also think it's too soon to be developing the next system. The current patient formally isn't six feet under yet and formalities matter with law.