this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
37 points (95.1% liked)
GenZedong
4913 readers
119 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
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.