this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
142 points (92.3% liked)
World News
38201 readers
510 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah, so if it’s not indiscriminate then it is discriminate. Targeted.
Hospitals. Shops. Schools. Businesses. Power.
On video. In print.
Also, the ousting of a pro Russian puppet due to not following the wishes of the people (free trade with Europe) should be quite telling. And then suddenly Russia rocks up with its military to try and force the issue.
Putin doesn’t want Ukraine to have closer ties to Europe. He doesn’t want them being self sufficient. He wants them to be dependent on Russia and be a part of it. They’ve always wanted it. First for the grain and now for the whatever else he wants - oil, minerals and wealth no doubt.
Yanukovych turned down the IMF loan that required privatizing and destroying safety nets like healthcare in favor of the Russian loan that didn't have the same strings attached, then the west couped him for it. It was never about "free trade." Russia didn't want the post-Euromaidan far-right regime to have ties to NATO while bombing the Donbass region.
Awfully convenient for you and Russia all these things don’t you think? Smells a bit on my bullshit detector. Why would an IMF load require privatising healthcare and removing safety nets when almost no other nation in Europe or the world for that matter has such things.
What the loan did require was an introduction of austerity measures to help restore/bolster the economy, like ending certain gas subsidies (I suppose you could lump that in a safety net if you wish) and high government worker pay.
The people did not want the “no strings attached” loan from Russia because they knew it would not solve anything and they knew things needed to change, otherwise they would be in the same position in short order, and it would certainly not be no strings attached. When the people start protesting the government you know something is amiss.
They want less reliance on Russia, not more.
Regarding the Donbass, I know we hate links, but this essay seems quite informative with a lot of sources and I’m curious your thoughts - likely far-right aligned with Russia but I’m hopeful you can keep an open mind.
https://aspeniaonline.it/russian-disinformation-about-the-ukrainian-conflict-since-2014-fact-checking-and-recurring-patterns/
The IMF does that with almost every loan. Sorry to spring this up on you, but the west is a cabal of imperialist nations that exploit, loot, and plunder the world. It forces poverty and austerity measures to free up money for loans and foreign investment to own key infrastructure. This austerity comes in the form of privatizing and destroying safety nets, and the very same safety nets Europeans enjoy are funded by this imperialism.
From The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/the-rotten-roots-of-global-economic-governance/
From The Elephant: https://www.theelephant.info/analysis/2025/01/16/debt-and-austerity-the-imfs-legacy-of-structural-violence-in-the-global-south/
The people did want the Russian loan, that's why there was a civil war. The Russian loan would have been far better. Yanukovych went against the wishes of parliament, which was in his bounds as president to do so, then was couped by the west and the far-right Banderites.
As for your source, it does indeed align with the far-right, pro-imperialist narrative. What it does is admit some basic facts, but twist them, exaggerate, and minimize, as all good propaganda does. I've read these western framed sources already, but I'm a communist, and as such I agree more with leftist analysis like that. My opinion is the common Marxist take, shared largely by PSL's statement and FRSO's statement.
Since you love sources, why not read through these? They're almost all western sources, so you should understand that these people already try their best to present the far-right narrative you agree with, but they still can't help when basic facts arise:
NATO expansion
not one inch east declassified https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16116-document-05-memorandum-conversation-between
Documents reveal Clinton forced Yeltsin into signing NATO-Russia pact https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/documents-reveal-clinton-forced-yeltsin-into-signing-nato-russia-pact/
In May 1990 speech Secretary General Manfred Wörner said “The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees.”
This shows 2 things:
https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm
fascism
maidan coup
war crimes
negotiations
misc sources
IMF bad
Russia is capitalist, but doesn't have the immense imperialist infrastructure to plunder the world that the west has. China isn't imperialist, nor is BRI. China doesn't loot and plunder the global south like the west does, there's mutual development.
When you say "the people wanted X," and I showed how that was not at all consistent, you then try to minimize that there was not a consensus at all as I pointed out.
Russia is indeed not communist, nor is Ukraine, but the western imperialists provoked the war and are carving up Ukraine for it. I don't believe everything Russia says, and I don't believe everything Ukraine says. I even gave you a mountain of western sources backing up my points.
Palestine isn't communist but I support them too. Me being a communist helps me analyze why this conflict is happening in the first place without just reducing everything to a battle of good vs evil like right-wingers do. Again, as I showed, my analysis is the most common communist analysis, you dehumanizing me and calling me a bot or a shill just because you can't actually accept that communists disagree with your pro-western, pro-NATO viewpoint is absurd.
I'm sorry for dehumanising you.
There is strong argument though that china is steadfast in becoming imperialist though, and Russia already is wether you like to believe it or not. The very definition of imperialism:
The chinese and russian spheres are immense. China owns the planet practically through their manufacturing exports, everyone relies on them. They have bought up many companies and land in every nation. They are a monopoly in many fields.
Can you explain how the dreaded western imperialists are carving up Ukraine? When Russia is literally carving it up? First Crimea and now you say they want the 4 Oblasts. Taking.
What are your thoughts on Putin's remarks of "all of Ukraine is ours" and that he sees them as "one people" (i.e not ukranian) and the firm belief of an old russian adage of wherever a russian soldier boot steps is russian soil.
There isn't a strong argument that China is "steadfast in becoming imperialist." There's projection from western countries that have imperialized and colonized the global south for centuries. The liberal, western definition of imperialism you give is meant to makw any influence seem to be imperialism, it's vibes-based. A much better definition is one of extraction via export of capital, ie outsourcing and using millitary domination to force austerity on the global south (exactly the role of the IMF).
China and Russia are not imperialist by this definition, one that is materialist, and accepted by the majority of the world and not just the west.
The west provoked the war with Russia, sabotaged peace talks, and give aid in exchange for steep loans and rare earths. They are forcing Ukraine into an unwinnable war so that they can fleece Ukraine for everything.
As for Putin, generally the people and land in Eastern Ukraine are Russian, that's why the divide exists. Western Ukraine is Ukrainian. Putin's words often get morphed through a game of telephone, exaggerated, or taken out of context. He's certainly no saint, but he's also not Hitler 2 like liberals claim.