RedPandaRedGuard

But you see, a country doing that if the constitution allows for that is democratic. Because the country is democratic and so the constitution is democratic making the country democratic. Simple liberal math.

Anyone got more of an understanding of the Nepali communist party?

As I understood it they promote socialism with Nepalese characteristics, similar to how China is adapting socialism for itself. And that they came out of a merger of a Maoist and a Marxist-Leninist party.

Saw others call them revisionist. Is there any grounds to that?

That is specifically why I'm asking.

I see the majority of Marxists critically or sadly sometimes uncritically supporting Russia in this conflict.

That is something I do not agree with or understand on a moral level. And on a strategic level I do not see Russia as a reasonable or competent potential ally anymore after the recent years. I cannot support Russia without any arguments for it that I'm not aware of, without any cognitive dissonance.

I would never defend the actions of the Ukrainian government in ending the protests in the east following the Maidan coup. Put putting down the opposition is still on a different level from invading a country.

Now this is just an irrational and insulting response, calling me a lib.

All you're doing is throwing the word nazi around.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine is run by nazis.

But both have nazis and other fascists running rampant in their society and army. Wagner quite famously had many far right elements. The only difference between Wagner and Azov was that Wagner was a mercenary troop and not directly part of the Russian army.

What you're describing essentially draws no difference between the two countries, except that one has been aligned by NATO. So again I have to ask, why support Russia in this case? And as it seems from your comment, why so uncritically on top of it?

Russia is not struggling against western imperialism, it's trying to cling onto it's past sphere through it's own imperialism which just so happens to put them up against the expansion of the US hegemony.

As I said before I can understand the strategic interest in Russia winning. But again morally I do not see how this justifies it. Neither government is worse than the other, both filled with corruption, far right elements, oligarchs, oppression and massacres. But only one is defending.

I'm not defending Ukraine. I'm saying they have a right to defend themselves against aggression. As any nation does with the rare exception of countries that commit massive atrocities and genocides (Cambodia, Nazi Germany (ofc tho they were in fact the aggressor), Rwanda, Myanmar).

Furthermore if not a full scale invasion, then what was the push for Kiev when the war started? Its goal was the quick overthrow and surrender of the Ukrainian government and armed forces. After that failing Russia is still occupying probably around 1/4 to 1/3 of Ukrainian lands since the war started. Troop movements and the front lines are objective facts.

How so? Ukraine deployed the military to its eastern regions to crush opposition protests and possible secessionist movements. But that's still an internal affair. Not an attack on another nation.

The issue is you can say all the same about Russia in this case, except for not being NATO aligned.

My objection is starting a war and attempted full scale invasion with the intend of territorial expansion and installing a pro-Russian government (not much different from the CIA couping a pro-Western government to power).

I'm asking for reasons as to why to critically support Russia as opposed to Ukraine and if the strategic advantage is worth the moral repercussions.

To me it's a case of two condemnable states at war with each other. Where the aggressor is still less moral due to being the invader.

Of course. Cuba would be great, my only issue is that I'm not too fond of high temperatures like in the Caribbean. But that will be a problem in the future anyway.