no, it required the organization of the communist party. the revolution was just as possible in France as it was in the USSR as it is today in Ukraine.

You’re not gonna get a real answer from these guys bro

Would it not be better to say "an elected government"?

I've never heard of this book before in my life

So you in favor of imperialism I assume?

great book i really need to finish it

nato membership and eu membership are two different things and the former's necessity is being used to maintain the essential nationalist fearmongering of the ukrainian government

Zelenskyy assassination soon

you're ukrainian?

ok maybe you recced it to me then. and yeah I didnt quite finish it either. the diplomatic back and forth got too frustrating.

He is a Russian living in the West

Idk why capitalists would ever give up their deep rooted power to an elected government

Which is the Crux of the issue here. Capitalists on the periphery / front of interaction of the American/Russian sphere will have the dilemma of choosing one or the other

In this case, staying in the Russian sphere means a higher priority of protection (proximity), cultural barriers, and preexisting relations

The American side is enticing because it’s simply bigger and more extractive and more lucrative

The latter is why so many post Soviet republics moved to the west after the collapse. Russia sold itself for parts and private interests saw little reason to stay attached. It wasn’t a “liberation” but rather plugging in from one extractive overlord’s system to the next (not calling the user an extractive overlord but rather its successor

Genuinely trying to understand not argue, but I'm confused by your point.

theres no imperialism on russias part because this is not 1905 and theres only one world hegemon which is the united states of america. russia is not an empire, its a powerful neighbor but it has little to no soft or hard power or capital to maintain any kind of imperialism among its neighbors, as this conflict clearly demonstrates. the whole thing began quite literally because there were multiple oligarch camps in both countries that got their money from different activities; one managed to exploit their resource base so potently accumulated during the socialist period, the other was always one to benefit from that as well but also looked towards 'foreign' capital thinking itll improve their situation should they open up their country to it

this is a local conflict thats been brewing based on contradictory nationalistic notions of two neighboring countries and their ruling classes being at odds with each other

part of my family is ukrainian but idk how thats relevant

Once again, bill Clinton breaking a few rules to make integrating Russia into the EU possible and disbanding nato would’ve made the landscape of Europe very different

But that would defeat the pragmatic purpose of building an enemy in the east to justify American exploitation of Europe

Russia wanted to join the EU?

My point is that capitalists supersede the interests of any elected liberal government, and their interests in choosing which capitalist system to kneel to (American or Russian) should not be confused with national self determination

assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=13932&lang=en

They never formally applied to the EU but they regularly cited that they didn’t want to go through the normal application process

Well. Guess this is the collapse of Europe lol

Why include "liberal" in there? Do you have facts to back up that this is only a liberal government issue and not an issue regardless of party?

Buddy you smoking crack if you think an eastern european would ever in his life trust Russian State
As a side you so deep in your rabbit hole that you think East Europe hate towards Russia State comes from America

what did snowboy and wru do? lmao

Europes been a hollow shell held up by American and Soviet-Russian projects and the draining coffers of imperialism since 1945 tbf