I feel like it presents leftists as being as smug and snobbish as reactionaries.

Simpy, states and imperialism are the overarching power structures of our world.

We cannot discuss our present conditions effectively except through a willingness to consider the prominence of such systems.

Authoritarians constantly emphasize imperialism because they believe change occurs beginning at the top, and as such, they place limited importance on local organization. However other leftists also should emphasize criticisms of imperialism, whereas many imagine change proceeding in a frame that is strictly national, without any transformation of the overarching state and imperialist order.

States generally are formed when a belligerent group enters a region, enslaving the population and installing itself as rulers. In such a case, the ruling ideology develops to affirm both classes as of the same nation. Under imperialism, a ruler sends conquerors and colonizers to an established nation. If the nation has its own internal class division, then its rulers are forced to accept vassalage to the imperialist power. The imperialist power installs an ideology of its own national supremacy, by which the two nations are maintained as separate in identity and stature.

I naturally agree with the basic premise that the issue is oil not drugs.

I question that deficit spending is either threatening or threatened within the US. Further, I find it a tenuous case that US companies are not eager to restore the control of Venezuelan oil that they maintained preceding nationalization, such eagerness being more than sufficient to account for the motives of US action against Venezuela.

I am simply explaining the situation. No one is making excuses. The situation is not ideal in Cuba, the same as everywhere around the world, but it is much less severe than you represent.

Raul is now retired. He had served as the head of the Party, which is a position elected from within the Party, and as the president, which is elected by the National Assembly, itself elected popularly. All of his political power was through such formal positions, which others were free to seek as his replacement.

Also, union participation is nearly universal. As such, an unpopular government is obviously unlikely to remain in power except by capitulating to worker demands. Moreover, workers wield more power, relative to the state, than mostly everywhere in the world, including the states that style themselves as the most free. Thus, even high-ranking offices carry limited power in practice.

The Castros rule Cuba in the same sense that the Windsors rule the UK. The role is effectively only ceremonial, with a minimum of formal powers.

The government and revolution are both immensely popular among Cubans.

The government monitors and represses subversive activities, but so does every other state.

Union participation is nearly universal, and laws are passed by a national popular assembly.

The Family Code was recently revised, through a process of nationwide contribution and referendum, which serves as an example of functional democracy.

All was achieved despite constant colonial bombardment by the US. Cubans correctly identify as their enemy the US government, not the government of Cuba.

I repeat that Russia wants not simply to dismantle US imperialism, but also would establish itself as hegemon at any opportunity, however absurdly remote such possibility may seem. Thus, defending Russia is an error.

I agree that NATO and the US carry tremendous responsibility, and that the best outcome from the present would be territorial concession as a condition for both sides concluding belligerence.

Russia is motivated not simply by dismantling the imperial core, but by becoming hegemonic. The imperial periphery would gain nothing by trading one overseas hegemon for another.

The alternative, literally, is the working class developing power.

Russian expansion may seem appealing because US expansion is problematic, but Russian expansion is problematic all the same.

Even if the weakening of US hegemony hastens the advent of socialism, atrocities against civilian populations in no way resembles the world we want to build.

I think it is a difficult case that the invasion was a net benefit in overall humanitarian terms.

The invasion occurred suddenly, without any final demands articulated to avoid war.

NATO expansion was a cause. Russian expansion was a cause. I oppose both, and take issue with the campist position of denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.

It is a mistake to divide the world by bad states versus good states. We can sympathize with workers oppressed by Ukraine, but our side should not be Russia. Our side is the international workers of the world.

At issue is whether to support the invasion, and whether the reasons for such support validate denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.

The situation for some may have improved, or be hoped to improve, as a consequence of the invasion, but the overarching calamity across the region overshadows such particular gains. The overall humanitarian situation unequivocally has deteriorated due to the invasion.

We need to be careful with terms. “Ethnically suppressed” is vague. Russian-speaking Ukrainians were not selected for internment or elimination. Ethnic cleansing certainly seems an inappropriate allegation. What was the experience that made resistance worth the cost?

Also, fascism has a particular meaning. Ukraine has fascist militias. The regime is reactionary, installed through a coup, and a puppet of the US. All are alarming, but also common throughout the world, and their convergence still does not amount to the regime being fascist.

Is acknowledging that Russia has committed atrocities incompatible with acknowledging that Russian-speaking groups may have legitimate grievances about rule by Ukraine?

You can’t read.

Russian-speaking groups in Ukraine certainly may have legitimate grievances. Whether they were worth a prolonged conflict is questionable. Most of the bloodshed could have been avoided by such groups accepting the terms of rule by Ukraine, despite their grievances. They would not be fully satisfied, but also not be bombarded by shelling. The conflict is a civil war, not ethnic cleansing.

Regardless, Russia is not liberatory. Life under Russian rule for Russian-speaking groups in the contested regions would be oppressive just as life is oppressive generally for Russians, and even if life for such groups is oppressive under rule by Ukraine. The situation in the contested regions was invoked as an excuse to garner popular support for the invasion, and helping the population was not authentically a motive.

Framing Russia as humanitarian or liberatory is absurd, and defending its atrocities is disgusting.

Ukraine represses separatist movements, just like Russia and every other state.

How does it bear on Russia having committed atrocities?

World War II was big bomb go bad boom.

I am very intelligent.

What word do you need sounded out?

Identifying a few factions, dates, and names of the events would be a solid way to respond to a request for clarification.

Do you describe the Second World War as “bad thing where people died”, or could you think of more details that elucidate the events?

Who are my heroes?

Regardless, please clarify “the campaign of ethnic cleansing”.

Both sides of the conflict are indictable, but atrocities cannot be excused on the same basis as war.

Please clarify “13,000 Ukranian civilians murdered by their own government”. Casualties in conflict are not murder, much less murder committed by the “by their own government”, even if the conflict could have been avoided.