GenZedong

4289 readers

8 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.

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 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

A hilarious cope article from The Hill (thehill.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In a rather ironic twist, as Europe slips into recession and Russia's economy flourishes, we see articles attempting to assert that Russia will suffer from losing its ties with the West.

This demonstrates an astonishing lack of understanding on behalf of Western nations towards the Global Majority and their ability to thrive without reliance on the West.

Likewise, the analogies drawn with the Cold War are utterly baseless, as the situation today is diametrically opposed - during the Cold War, the West was the dominant economic powerhouse, while now it is the BRICS that hold sway.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

The most used answer in a political scientist's toolbox is "it depends". Stalin's decision to not antagonize the US after WW2 was intelligent given that the USSR was fried after the Revolution, Civil War, invasions by the West, and obviously WW2. They were simply not capable of fighting and needed years of peace to build up, even if that meant being unable to help in the revolution in Greece and the Civil War in Korea (at least not sending troops). Khrushchev's decision to put the barrel of the nuclear gun pointed at America's dick in the September Crisis (aka Cuban Missile Crisis in the West) was boneheaded and an unnecessary escalation. Every nation, no matter how repugnant has the right to self-defense from foreign nations. But Russia pushing back on NATO is totally valid, even if invading Ukraine isn't good, I don't know what other realistic options they had.

Right now the US is caught flat-footed after the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, with two neo-military base puppet nations (Israel and Saudi Arabia) being rebellious and not following the US's commands exactly, a string of very unpopular US leaders, their government showing cracks in its stability, an economy that is languishing from a recession they cannot recover from. So it is the most opportune time to press hard on them. Not to mention, the PRC continues to grow and is even mending bridges with Vietnam (a potential ally the US has been courting heavily for decades now), as BRICS+ expands in size and importance.