emzillain

For the purposes of my comment I'm using the dictionary's definition of 'imperialism', which is to say no, I've not read those author's works.

As for your questions:

1. NATO is definitely involved, but Russia is not fighting them. I would liken them more to a boxing coach, their influence on Ukraine is massive and undeniable, but they're only providing support, Ukraine is the one actually dealing (and receiving) the punches (Also the coach gave the boxer steroids but in this context its okay(weird reaching metaphor))
2. I'm not here to defend NATO, I'm not like a NATO-fan. I can criticize NATO and Russia in the same breath.
3. I simply do not believe Russia's stated aims, much like the stated aims of the conflicts the US instigates it fails to stand up to scrutiny. What does 'denazifcation' of Ukraine even look like? Russia goal was regime change, hence why their first thrust was to Kyiv in hopes of immediately ending the war.

If Russia had immediately ended the war, it would have been a great success and put Russia in a good position. But they didn't and now even if Russia succeeds and upends the Ukrainian government, it would seem like a pyrrhic victory given the circumstances.

People like this are rarely worth engaging with but I believe there's value to the community when their statements are publically challenged.

But yeah you're right, I'm definitely not changing any minds here ha

This is literally the first post I've made on this platform haha.'nazi bourgeois overlords' is a meaningless word-salad, and by this point you're really reaching.

You don't care about the rest of the world, you would laugh watching Africans and East Asian's die, all you do is swallow the propaganda your fascist elitist masters tell you to.

Didn't that sound crazy? How that sounded to you, is how what you said sounded to me.

Only a fraction of the currently active troops in Ukraine have received training from NATO, only a fraction are armed with NATO weaponry, and Ukraine hasn't received significant amounts of aircraft, which is the linchpin to the entire NATO offensive strategy.

So if Russia is struggling to make the progress it has against a force that ISN'T fully armed with NATO weaponry and strategy, it stands to reason they would fare even worse against NATO itself.

The rest of your post is lot of words without much of a point. So Russia should be allowed to invade Ukraine and commit atrocities against their people because... the United States did bad things in the past? But if its awful when the United States does it why would you support Russia also doing it?

I absolutely LOVE how you're shitting on Americam imperialism here, when Russia is doing the exact same thing you're complaining about? You know, the whole invading Ukraine to steal their resources and destabilize it politically thing, or is it OK when the country is next door instead? 🙂

Russia should continue to be glad they aren't actually fighting NATO yet, they can hardly beat the Ukrainians as it is.