Imperialism does not mean “of empire”. It is an economic system, the highest stage of capitalism.

Source: Trust me bro.

It’s not doing better than expected, it has entirely reverted. Its quarterly growth is now outperforming most of the EU. Meanwhile the EU is becoming vassalised by the US as a result of this, which is precisely what the US wanted the war for in the first place and precisely why the US bombed the german-owned Nordstream 2 pipeline. The vast majority of the motivation for this proxy war from the US side is simply that it is vastly increasing european dependency on the US and removing what little sovereignty we had left.

and is making, albeit small, gains

They are making no gains, zero. They have not crossed a single Russian defensive line. They have not come within sight of a dragon’s tooth. They have been repelled by artillery before reaching the first line every single time. There are three lines to cross.

Taking a field or a village of 200 people is not a “gain” it is simply space that nobody felt like defending being used for propaganda. These spaces would equally be abandoned by Ukraine at the first sign of pressure because they’re simply not worth holding. Highlighting these is desperate cope by the online propagandists that you have to look past and focus on what matters - the actual lines of defence and control.

Doing exactly what is needed to get change to happen when the cops are murdering children in traffic stops by shooting them in the head and then lying about it at every single level of power is good actually.

When the state refuses to provide justice people should absolutely take it. The threat of the population taking their own justice is precisely what motivates states to provide a source of it that they control.

I strongly recommend you actually watch what happened.

I do not see how any political leader making a statement of support for protesters over this heinous act is “opportunistic”. It’s exceptionally important to have their voices sounding off to maintain momentum and public support.

Say what you will about him not being hard-left enough, I’ll give you that. But I don’t think it’s the time or place for it.

The Russian economy is worse off

What metric are you using to determine this?

the war will end with Russia getting at most Crimea

This would require the complete and total collapse of Russia and the formation of a new country. Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are legally Russia under Russian law. There is no mechanism via which they can be ceded. When everyone eventually sits down at the table they legally can not be put on it by the negotiators that form the Russian side.

I personally think Russia will take everything south of the Dnipro river then hand over the parts that are not Donbass as a political means of showing that the west won against them in some way.

Even if there were a mechanism by which these could be tabled I don’t see why they would. They are winning, the counteroffensive is achieving absolutely zero, support is very low across Europe and there is very little evidence that their gains will stop.

What mechanism are you thinking of here? Serious question. How? The only way what you’re claiming will happen could possibly occur is via a massive pushback, but that’s clearly not happening. You’d need nato to deploy and to kick off ww3 properly.

a coup in the US is completely unrealistic as of now.

I know. But the factionalism and divisions make it more likely than in Russia at the present moment in time. That was the point, to highlight that is incredibly unrealistic to expect it to happen in Russia after we’ve just had a demonstration of failure with almost no division barring the tantrum that occurred.

I think we’re going to end up talking past each other as we disagree and there’s a few things we’d just end up repeating over and over so forgive me for skipping a chunk here. I will respond to this though:

destroying the economy even further

“Even further” is an odd choice here. The Russian economy is stronger now than before the war sanctions. The sanctions failed miserably, everything that Russia could no longer get from the west it simply gets from South East Asia (China/India mainly) and the Middle East now. Reddit thinks there was some great economic smashing of Russia but it really horribly failed.

Winning the war is unrealistic at this time, would take a long time

“Winning” here is more a question of when parties will get round a table to negotiate again. The war almost ended in April but Boris Johnson put a stop to the deal that would have done that. It could end quickly, it could also take a long time, dependent almost entirely on how long the west wants to drag it out as a proxy war for. There is also the question of whether the US and EU might pivot to a focus on China, which would also result in getting round a table to end the Ukraine war first as they simply do not have the means to focus on both at once.

And about the USA, yeah that’s a bit of a whataboutism. There is a lot of division there and I think they are one bad president away from significantly worsening the situation. We will see about that too I guess.

It’s not really whatabout. It’s just useful to have a comparative baseline for “division” to understand what is necessary to create and succeed in a coup. Do you think one would succeed in the US under the current conditions? What factions and groups would need to be involved? This thought experiment is useful for understanding the kind of divisions, alliances and coalitions necessary to making a coup succeed elsewhere. It helps ground your thoughts in a more material reality rather than the fantasies peddled in the media circuit.

People should pay attention to these incidents of corporate security-state forces performing these kinds of actions against individual targets. It is a matter of time before individual targetting expands to widespread activity. Such “intelligence services” in corporate organisations will expand in power in much the same way intelligence services expand in power in government organisations. They function the same way as the security state does.

When companies are so large they have internal secret police doing spook shit at the highest levels of the company.

I think any serious presidential competitor has yet to emerge - none of the Communist candidates, or Navalny, are credible IMO. 9 months is plenty of time to make a campaign happen though.

I don’t think this is realistic. You’re asking for sweeping massive electoral pattern changes that won’t happen without a massive crisis functioning as a catalyst. I can’t see a source for such a crisis on the horizon though, the frontline isn’t going to change while the economic sanctions were resoundingly defeated and hurt we european residents significantly more than Russians.

FWIW if you want examples of leadership changes during a war, how about Neville Chamberlain?

Chamberlain was not changed by an election of the population of the UK, he was changed by Conservative party infighting leading to the 1922 committee demanding his resignation in a “do it or we’ll do it for you” ultimatum, as they have always done. Chamberlain resigned his position as leader of the Conservative party and Churchill took it.

There was no election in the UK between the years of 1935 and 1945.

Or the two revolutions in Russia itself in 1917?

Generated by an unpopular war in a series of wars that the tsar repeatedly got people killed in for his vanity. This is not an unpopular war though and there is no anti-war movement, it is supported by every political faction of the country. Even the euro liberals don’t openly state their opposition and that’s not because they would disappear (they wouldn’t) but because it would be wildly unpopular and harm their political growth, they are forced into silence through the conditions that currently exist.

that Putin will be simply “encouraged” behind the scenes to retire rather than run again

This requires factional fighting, which is non-existent at this time. He has broad across the spectrum support both in his party and in opposition groups because they all see him as ushering in a multi-polar world, which is extremely beneficial to the interests of every faction that exists. I still do not see where you think the factionalism exists for this to happen. Who? Why? What faction is going to push him out and for what purpose? With everyone wanting to see the completion of this project there’s no faction internally to interrupt it.

Yeah? Which one? CGTN? Sixth Tone? Ever meet Jingjing? I assume it’s an english one given you seem to be a native speaker.

This answer doesn’t actually refute the article on whether it is accurate or not so I guess you’re going to agree that it’s accurate then?

Is China special? Not really. I’d argue that all large-scale news organizations around the world function as propaganda of a sort, whether private or public. China’s is usually just more ham-fisted.

Absolutely 100% and we have the CIA’s John Stockwell in the 70s discussing about their complete and total infiltration of and ability to put out anything they want in the media back in then, their control and ability has only advanced in the 50~ years since.

Small local newspaper media on the other hand is often populated with good people, even the ones owned by very large corporations, because of the reduced pool of potential writers and staff.

You’re expecting the main opposition - the communist party - to beat him then? Zyuganov?

If that fantasy happened it would split the communist party between the half that is controlled opposition who would see it as “the wrong time” for it to happen and the half who truly want socialist power again. The election would then be redone with a 3 way split between the two factions and Navalny’s fascist coalition supported by the euro liberals.

I mean, I would want that outcome as it would result in a real left communist opposition emerging but I think it’s incredibly unrealistic. Not to mention that you’re expecting the population to boot a leader during the middle of a war? I am not sure how often that has happened, populations understand you keep the same leader during wartime. You would need the population to become against the war for that to occur and uhhh I hate to break it to you but absolutely the support the war and it would take a huge change in the frontline situation to change that - one that I do not think is coming judging by the failures of the counter offensive so far.

The Russian government’s internal security apparatus appears incompetent because it did not consider Wagner a threat, even though Prigozhin had been telegraphing his intentions for days (and probably planning it for months). The Russian military appears weak and overstretched, because it could not protect its operational HQ by force. Putin appears weak because he disappeared at the crucial moments, and large parts of Russia appeared sympathetic to Prigozhin even if they weren’t prepared to directly take part. The image of Putin being the supreme ruler in charge of everything looks pretty suspect at this point, and Russians know it because most of the events happened live on Russian state TV.

This is all “appears” “appears” “appears”. You are hung up on appearances. You seem to think that if they just appear a certain way to people then that will magically change the balances of factional power in the country.

Liberals have this bizarre idea about where power comes from. You all seem to believe that the population of the country has power, that if the government simply appears weak then it will magically result in the population doing… Something… And then the government will be overthrown and the war will be won!

Power is derived by those in hierarchical positions in a country to command various things within their positions to occur. And when enough people all align alongside one another and command things to happen together, if the related organisations follow those commands, they hold power.

I acknowledge in my other comments that this is embarrassing (which is quite a similar interpretation to you saying it hurts appearances). But the bottom line is how it affects power in the country. What factions exist and who those factions are aligning themselves behind.

This attempt did not result in anything like a weakening of the state or Putin. It consolidated all the sources of power in the country behind Putin, into statements of support and actions that back it up.

Putin has a long history of wriggling out of difficult situations, and he might still pull things out of the bag, but I think this is the beginning of the end for him.

By what mechanism?

Do you have a constructive response? Like evidence to the contrary showing this isn’t happening?

Given how the west has behaved in the middle east since 2001 is it really surprising to you that they would look to the rival instead?

This is good for the middle east. They have been destabilised, crushed and treated like subhumans by America for 20 years. Gaining autonomy and improving stability in the region post-US is a positive thing.

I think he simply grossly overestimated his support, believing that something more would come of it that did not.

I just don’t agree that this strengthened the state/Putin. In a way, if someone like Prigozhin without any realistic chance tries a coup and gets away with his life (at least for now) doesn’t this show how weak Russia currently is?

It has embarrassed Russia for sure, the global south in particular supports Russia a lot and there will be some respect lost through it but that’s not going to change much about why they support Russia (serves their interests to see a multipolar world emerge) so they’ll continue to do so.

While it may have caused foreign embarrassment that’s not really important in terms of “strength” of the state. The strength of a state is determined by the political and military powers within it supporting it and its institutions. Literally all of them did so which has ultimately served to resolve the question “is it possible for Russia to collapse?” with a resounding “No” at this time.

By comparison and to do a big whatabout - I would say that the US has a greater amount of division and potential for political and financial factions to attempt to tear it apart. I however don’t think that there is anyone quite as bold or stupid as Prigo to overestimate their support or underestimate the size of the support you need to tear apart and successfully coup a country like that though.

Like I keep pointing out, the gang of eight were an incredibly powerful coalition that failed. They serve as an example of the kind of coalition you really need to pull this shit off and they make Prigo look like a bit of a joke by comparison. Part of me wonders if members of the Russian intelligence community deliberately led him on into believing he had support in order to create this outcome, but that’s pure speculation. The man isn’t entirely stupid though, so I have to wonder what exactly made him think he would have more support.

Of course he called it off lmao. He had NO SUPPORT. He was totally isolated.

Compare this to the gang of eight when the communists attempted but failed a coup and you’ll see what a real powerful coup attempt looks like. That failed.

Look at who supported and took part in that and compare it to Prigozhin’s isolated attempt with absolutely no support, no allies, nothing, while every single other political and military force in the country backed the state.

Prigo grossly overestimated his position. He thought he would get supporters once it was launched, he got absolutely nothing and he backed out at the earliest opportunity with a guarantee of his life being protected in Belarus. This was accepted by state because the alternative would have been a disaster for Russia with thousands of dead in a battle for Rostov and defence of the outskirts of Moscow.

Why are liberals this delusional?

Mayors? You think 2 mayors not acting quickly enough on shaky unknown information within just hours shows that the state is weak?

The issue is that there was NO support for Prigo. He was totally isolated. Not one single person in a military or political position of power came to his side as he had hoped. Every single actual source of power in the country (and outside of it) backed Putin.

Compare this to 1991 when the communists attempted a coup in the soviet union to (correctly) prevent its eventual dissolution. They had the Gang of Eight which included:

1. Gennady Yanayev (1937–2010), Vice President
2. Valentin Pavlov (1937–2003), Premier
3. Boris Pugo (1937–1991), Interior Minister
4. Dmitry Yazov (1924–2020), Defense Minister and Marshal of the Soviet Union
5. Vladimir Kryuchkov (1924–2007), Chairman of the KGB
6. Oleg Baklanov (1932–2021), First Deputy Chairman of the Defense Council of the USSR
7. Vasily Starodubtsev (1931–2011), Chairman of the Peasants’ Union of the USSR
8. Alexander Tizyakov (1926–2019), President of the Association of State Enterprises

This was a REAL and powerful coup attempt with real political and military support. A true split in the country.

They failed, and no further attempt would occur afterwards, it strengthened the state and the opposition forces that sought to end socialism in the country and bring about the economic hell of Shock Therapy.

You can not possibly argue that this mutiny (calling it a coup compared to past failures is laughable), by one man with literally zero allies, which ended in a single day has done anything other than strengthen the state by showing everyone how there is no political or military division. Not to mention Wagner is being disbanded as well so that only brings that chapter to a close.

You people need to get more realistic.

After the events that just strengthened it? Absurd. Anything to avoid actually feeding people, addressing the 33% of children currently in poverty or the constantly declining living standards we have I suppose.

EDIT: God this place has gone south since all the redditors came over.

1. When a coup fails, it strengthens the existing state. It has told everyone that might rebel that there is too much support in the existing state for it to succeed. See Erdogan doing it intentionally in Turkey to strengthen and consolidate his power if you want another example of this.

2. I live in the UK. This is absolutely a fucking waste of our time and energy. Nobody gives a damn about this when a third of children in the country live in poverty and cost of living is through the roof. It is entirely a distraction because Brexit, austerity and successive neoliberal governments have systematically gutted the country. Anything to distract from the fact half the country keeps going on strike or actually paying people more.

No, I look at the evidence provided, speculate about what’s missing, and then ask why it’s missing.

But that’s the problem. You’re just speculating.

If I visit america and then speculate that everything I’m seeing is actually fake and made up by an entire country of fucking actors purely for the benefit of pretending america is something it’s not you would call me utterly deranged.

Is it the best place in the world to live? Fuck no it’s not. Its been embargoed and the subject of economic warfare for decades, not to mention the literal genocide of one fifth of its population that the US performed. Its behaviour towards the US should not at all be surprising given this history, they never want to see it happen again. Imagine if 1 in 5 of every person you know was firebombed and 99% of the buildings in your country were razed to the ground and then some white anglo fucks on the internet just make up shit about you over and over and over again.

what exactly is happening to the Uigurs? Is it consensual? How can I verify?

Now? Fuck all is happening this ended like 2 fucking years ago and liberals are still going on about it. What did happen? A very serious crackdown and education program that involved mandatory schools where people deemed “at risk” (of becoming islamic extremists) were forced into a 5 day per week (they went home on weekends) education program.

Shit was very serious, terrorism was a real and major problem, bombings were happening once or twice a month and shit was seriously ramping up. This was being imported over the border with Afghanistan. This all stopped after the program.

They were then shut down. The US then proceeded to get out of afghanistan, as it no longer had any reason to be there. Here is a video of Col Lawrence Wilkerson saying that the cia were planning to do just that., keep in mind this man was Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State at the time of this video, which predates the explosion of uighur content online. Prior to the US suddenly having such an interesting in the rights of Uighurs it is also notable that the US was literally bombing them.

are people allowed to disagree publicly with the government? Why or why not? How can I independently verify?

Sure. Average people do all the time just look it up on Weibo. You could also just look up the culture of protest in the country (extremely frequent, activism is high, just not activism to literally overthrow the country). Gov does not give a shit about whether the average person disagrees with the government on various issues unless you happen to be a celebrity or millionaire/billionaire. The government cracks down extremely hard on the bourgeoisie and its representatives.

If you’re looking for more realistic ways to interpret the DPRK then I think you should look at things like food security figures, improvements in agriculture, or for living standards look at things like the smartphone market and percentage of ownership. 50% or more of the country owns a smartphone, 6-8 million have subscriptions to services. This kind of figure will give you something closer to an idea of what reality is without the mess of propaganda from all sides. It’s the kind of figure you can relate more closely to yourself, and to where western countries were 10-15 years ago. Here in the UK for example 2003-2005 we had roughly 50% smartphone ownership in the country.

Citizens of authoritarian countries often trust their governments more than those in liberal democracies. This apparent paradox is easily explained by the tight control these governments maintain over what people can see and hear

Your argument was falsified by Harvard a 30 year long study they did on Chinese approval of their government. They found that 95% of the country approved of the government and they specifically say in that study that it is NOT to do with this magical orientalist brainwashing that you claim it is caused by but instead it is caused by the fact that the Chinese population sees constantly improving conditions in their lives. The study also states that their opinions of the government change negatively when conditions decline, just that it doesn’t happen often.

Article on the study: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/

The study: https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf

Quotes:

the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being,

Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being

You need to readjust your thinking. The fact of the matter is that the popularity of the government in China has nothing to do with the racist claim of brainwashing and control as you claim. And your own research institutions say that themselves. Nobody here can call Harvard biased in favour of the CPC. Nor can they fault a 30 year long completely independent study, literally the longest study of its kind.

Science completely contradicts the racist claims that you are simply regurgitating from reddit comment sections.

The reality of the popularity of the CPC among the Chinese people is that it has improved the lives of the people by incredible amounts, and continues to do so.