Like I mentioned in my other comment, I think that both leaders can and should be criticized independently, a comparison between the two is not useful.

Neither leader is socialist, so in my opinion, neither truly has the best interest of their country's working class at heart. There could be some observation and speculation about how the possible outcomes of the conflict could promote socialist aims, but that is still independent of both guy themselves.

I'm not going to take a hard stance here cause I don't think a side by side comparison with Putin is a useful conversation to have, but I want to point out a couple things that may add some nuance to what you've heard before.

• Since 1991, Ukraine has been in an increasingly precarious geopolitical position, with many differences among it's population and political leadership about how to proceed. One could argue that Zelensky ended up stuck between a rock and a hard place, but at the end of the day his fumbling around and repeated motions towards joining NATO were bad political moves that nearly forced (kinda, maybe not forced idk) Russia's hand into a military action. Even if going to NATO was definitively the correct choice (weird thing to think, tbh), he managed doing so incredibly poorly.
• Be aware that Ukraine has had a lot of division among the populaton about whether the country should be Western/EU aligned or Russian aligned. There are many historical and cultural reasons for different regions, communities and individuals to have their particular views (like any political stance). Consider that if you spoke with a Ukrainian person somewhere outside of Eastern Europe, and used the English language, they are probably going to have a pro-western, pro-zelensky viewpoint. You probably won't hear much from Russian speaking Ukrainians who wouldn't prefer to emigrate to "the West", and support Ukrainian alignment with Russia.

I'd thought that even the most liberal people on nü-Lemmy had at least read some Chomsky (or even watched the documentaries based on his work), but I guess we aren't even there yet.

I'm not exactly with the other guy, but it's extremely important to realize that ALL sources are biased. The Washington post and the New York Times both function as propaganda. They often serve as the mouthpiece of the United States Department of State or Defense, and are happy to cultivate public support for military conflicts that are in the interest of the American ruling class.

This is well documented in the book Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. You can also listen to the podcast Citations Needed to gain a better understanding about how this works in the modern day.

An example you may be readily familiar with is the Iraq War, in which US government officials repeatedly lied to the public and started a meaningless war, without any real journalistic pushback. This lead to an atrocity affecting millions.

It seems like you had a point to contribute somewhere in there, but maybe try and communicate it in a way that isn't so pointed at the other user. We'd like to discourage that sort of toxicity here. Maybe if they were being a total shithead or reactionary, feel free to go off, but it seems unwarranted.

That sounds overly reductive to me

I mean, it's an article from a Japanese source, but yeah sure the OP is biased or whatever, but so is everyone else who regurgitates the top headline from the NYT or BBC. Since the others are part of the dominant ideology, it appears to be more transparent.

I mean, that's not strictly necessary either. Chinal allows a good many billionaires to exist, but they are hitting their emissions targets ahead of schedule, cause they don't let the billionaires run the entire show like they do in the USA.

Sectarianism (which the OP is also guilty of) makes for a dull conversation.

Particularly in the English-speaking world, there is no sect of socialism that has enough political power for that sort of conversation to matter. It's just shit-flinging over the internet. I know that Lemmy has a ton of "Reddit" in it's genes, but my hope is that we can try and build something more interesting here.

You think that all of them do it out of knowledge? Remember that if they weren't born before 1980, they've really only experienced the effects of capitalism on their countries. I've heard it happen before, that some 20-25 year old who immigrated with their parents in the mid-2000s is going off about how "communism ruined my country and that's why we had to leave", or something.

In 1991 the referendum to dissolve the USSR was voted against by the population (of course it happened anyway).

I don't mean to suggest that the political or economic systems implemented under communist governments were perfect, or even that great, but in the English-speaking world there is a tendency to assume that everyone (or even a majority of people) who lived there were against their own government, when it's much more complex than that.

A modern example I noticed recently was in this video, where the people living in the warzone in Eastern Ukraine are generally supportive of Russia, and miss the USSR (I mean, if anything, the current conflict never would have happened). Of course these two people don't represent their whole community, but it's more complex than is commonly portrayed (all I'm trying to say).

Watch from around 3:15 till about 20 minutes in when the old guy in the shirt is done talking (or just watch the whole thing idc): https://youtu.be/drhgjxSJG6M?t=197

You're right, but there's nothing humanitarian about a military conflict.

Everyone else just lived in pretty poor, if stable, conditions.

That's the thing, they lived in a poor country. Not strictly because of their political system (as many flaws as it had), but because of global economics, and trade hostility from the USA that intentionally hampered growth. It's not like they were purposely kept poor for funsies or cause the government were big meanies (sure, they were meanies in other ways). The wealth inequality between modern political leaders and funding sources (where the real power comes from) and the average citizen (particularly in the USA) is far greater than it ever was in the USSR.

Things are better for some and worse for many since then in Russia, but in other places like Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova everyone lost except for the rich guys who pillaged all the private infrastructure.