According to Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), the US intends to launch a campaign to undermine Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in order to replace him with a more malleable person. According to the agency, former Interior Minister Arsen Avakov is being considered for the job.
In a statement released on Tuesday, the SVR stated that "the American elite" is becoming increasingly unhappy with Zelensky as politicians on both sides of the aisle begin to "doubt the targeted spending of billions of dollars in military aid to Kiev."
Officials stated that Zelensky is engaging in "crazy steps" that threaten escalation "far beyond Ukraine," adding that Kiev “has moved to feverish action” as Zelensky tries to stay in power after the end of his official term in May.
Why are we voicing the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service?
Why not? Who else has a better ability and interest to uncover and expose what the US is plotting in Ukraine? Doesn't necessarily mean that it's true but it's a possibility and one that has been discussed by independent media for a while now. It's interesting to have a state source say this explicitly.
Could this just be information warfare? Of course, but that goes without saying about anything that any side says in a war, and that includes the western mainstream media which for all intents and purposes serves as the mouthpiece of the intelligence community and the military industrial complex.
You'd find me complaining here too if I saw posts by western mainstream media, but fair enough I see your point. I just say we should take russian state apparatus propaganda (or any state propaganda for that matter) which a handful of salt
Yes I did, I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and I don't see why we'd parrot the viewpoints of a right-wing imperialist country as much as I wouldn't quote the US defense department or the IDF
Russia is unfortunately a reich-wing country, but to call it imperialist is foolish or dishonest.
The definition of imperialist I'm using is that one of Lenin's "Imperialism: highest stage of capitalism". I.e. a developed, capitalist industrial nation, where the financialization of the economy has already taken place, and the competition of small capitalists among each other has given way to cartels, oligopolies and immense concentration of capital in the hands of a few. It's precisely the conflict between the capitalists in Russia and the capitalists in US that gives rise to conflicts such as the Ukraine war. US is more advanced in imperialism and is the #1 empire on earth right now, but Russia is also an imperialist country by that definition.
Financialization is a feature of capitalism in general. Over 80 percent of Russia' economic activity is for domestic consumption/use. Despite the power of the oligarchs, this battle is about the survival of Russia as a nation-state as a whole, not just the wealth of the rich.
Russia has no case of exporting money abroad to directly influence the outcome of elections or overthrowing foreign governments for it's capitalists. Russia is a possible future imperialist power to be wary of, but there are no indications that it is imperialist.
Again, we're talking of different definitions of imperialism.
Ok, but that's exactly the point. The economic interests of capitalist Russia directly oppose those of capitalist USA, why else would the USA be hostile to Russia and push NATO to its borders and blow up the NordStream? Why not do all of those things against, say, Germany? That's exactly what I mean by imperialist nations colliding, the private capital having opposed interests.
It tries through hackers though, but yes, not remotely on the scale of the US. I'm not saying "Russia is worse than the US" here, I'm saying that according to Lenin's definition of imperialism, Russia is currently an imperialist state.
Again, yes, exactly my point, I suggest you read the book I mentioned if you wanna understand what I mean. We agree, we're just hung up in semantics
It's not semantics when the case is fundamentally different, especially with with your false equivocation.
The U.S. has been gunning for Russia for centuries, you ignore context, and none of this makes Russia imperialist. It's borderline racist to claim that Russia is imperialist.
I'm abiding by Lenin's definition, you aren't, and you project onto me your mindset when you claim that Russia is imperialist for defending it's people from a decades-long siege that is generations old at least.
Your snide acidic neoliberal State Department talking point pontifications are duly noted.
Technically one century but sure, I don't deny that the US attitude towards Russia stems from imperialism.
"It's borderline to say Russia has reached the final stage of capitalism, with the financialization of the economy and the concentration of capital in the hands of a few oligarchs" I really don't see how it's racist to say that.
Establishing a continuity in "Russia" and the reasons for the US hostility towards it for the past 100+ years is absurd. The reasons why Tsarist Russia was expansionist (although not imperialist since it was barely industrialized), weren't the same as why the USSR invested in military and the US was hostile to it, and aren't the same as to why modern Russia invests in military and why the US is hostile to it.
And I don't claim that Russia is imperialist because it engages in warfare, that's not my criteria. The USSR engaged in warfare and Afghanistan and it wasn't imperialist, the argument could be made that something relatively similar is happening in Ukraine now. My point as to why it's imperialist is the consolidation of capital in the hands of a few, and the financialization of the economy. The EU is also an empire in this regard. It's harder to say for China given the wide state control over the private companies. I really fail to see how comparing highly developed capitalism in country A with highly developed capitalism in country B is racist of a State Department talking point.
It's completely up to you who you want to quote or not quote. But i just want to point out that this community's posts include a wide variety of sources, some of which are western mainstream media (which undoubtedly get most of their talking points from the DOD, CIA and State Department), others are Russian sources, others Chinese, etc., etc. If you want to be informed it is good to draw from as many different sources as possible, even ones that you strongly disagree with ideologically. It is not advisable to live in an information echo chamber, rather you should learn to critically analyze the media you consume taking into account their biases and motivation.
Fair enough, that's a good perspective. I tend to just ignore lib media propaganda and also ignore russian state apparatus propaganda, but I suppose this is another way to do it
If I see IDF or US Defense Department propaganda being spouted anywhere, of course I have issues. I have an alt account ([email protected]) in which you can check how the other day I was complaining about .world users citing IDF propaganda
Normally no, and I would be equally surprised if I saw them in this community
Ok, then I apologize for my first comment
No no, I get it, it's exhausting being a commie and getting constantly these cringelord libs being like "ackchually"