Putting aside the fact that OP’s idea is a vile edgy fantasy, this “anti‐war activism” is frequently a veneer for this narrative: US is effectively solely at fault, Russia’s invasion is justified, the west should stop aiding Ukraine and let Russia win. This is the position I’ve seen from .ml users.
And it’s not easy to not see that as indeed being pro‐Russian.
I linked 3 statements, from the DSA, Breakthrough News, and PSL, on the west’s position with respect to the Russo-Ukrainian war. All 3 draw attention to the long-understood role NATO and western countries made in provoking the conflict in the first place. The belief on the left is that war is most commonly caused by the continuous swelling of the military industrial complex, and the insaitable necessity for expansion and plundering other countries.
Ukraine is getting hollowed out for parts by western countries, who provoked the war in the first place, and are pushing for Ukraine to continue fighting “to the last Ukrainian” rather than work towards a negotiated settlement. None of this position is based on support for Russia as a founding reason, yet those who cannot actually argue against these positions frequently try to dodge the anti-war and pro-peace argument by claiming it’s somehow the work of Russian influence.
There’s good reason both the DSA and PSL largely agree about NATO’s role, as well as Die Linke, PTB, Breakthrough News, etc. It’s because this didn’t come from nowehere, the west has done this over and over again around the world repeatedly. It’s an observed pattern, with the only agency allowed internally to stop this is to advocate against the far-right slide and increased militarism.
We also oppose US and NATO military interventionism and the tens of billions in military aid and weapons shipments which only further exacerbates the war and undermine a negotiated settlement, as well as sanctions that will harm ordinary Russians.
So, pretty much as I said. Let Russia win and call it the anti‐war position, lol.
Ukraine is getting hollowed out for parts by western countries
Ohhh, evil western exploiters… Unlike the humane Russia that wouldnt hollow it out at all.
None of this position is based on support for Russia as a founding reason
It might not be the founding reason, but the outcome is the same.
A negotiated settlement is the best path forward for the Ukrainian people, who have been used by NATO countries as a battering ram to encircle and oppose Russia. This is not a “pro-Russia” stance, it’s a deliberate wish to end the war as soon as possible with as little bloodshed as possible. This is pure “peace is war” doublespeak on your part.
Saying stuff that nearly perfectly aligns with the official Russian narrative and military goals, and yet mechanically insisting that your stance is not pro‐Russian, is just not terribly convincing.
it’s a deliberate wish to end the war as soon as possible with as little bloodshed as possible. This is pure “peace is war” doublespeak on your part.
There’s at least one other option to end the war as soon as possible – having Russia cease the invasion. But in the pro‐Russian narrative, that option is not on the table, since the invasion was justified and necessary. It is not Russia that you want to see giving up, but Ukraine.
A ceasefire that gives concessions to a genocidal aggressor that is likely to attack again afterwards to get the rest of what it wanted is a pretty worthless peace, there’s nothing doublespeak about that conclusion. E.g. I also wouldn’t be advising Stalin to go beg Hitler for a ceasefire and giving concessions to the Third Reich while the Wehrmacht was encircling Leningrad, even though continuing and properly ending the war would and in fact did cost hundreds of thousands of lives – as tragic as it was, it was the correct decision, rather than some grotesque peace treaty. So spare me this selective pacifism.
Reread the statements I linked. The DSA and PSL are very different organizations, same with PTB and Die Linke, and yet they all focus on how to best bring an end to the war in a practical manner from their own positions as western organizations. None of them have power over what Russia does or does not do, but all can influence the continued warmongering and militarization of NATO. Only four countries recognize Russia as genocidal in the Russo-Ukrainian war:
And that’s because the Russo-Ukrainian war has, among modern conflicts, had a remarkably low civilian death count on both sides. What this means is that a swift and expedient settlement is the best that organizations in the west can actually push for to help the people of Ukraine, people who do not wish to keep fighting for western billionaires to plunder minerals. Further still, Donetsk and Luhansk already want to join Russia. Even if Kiev succeeded in pushing Russia back and getting them to surrender, Kiev would still be right back to the civil war it was in for 8 years prior to Russia entering the war.
The best case scenario for working class Ukrainians, as well as the people in the Donbass, is a negotiated settlement now. This is something socialist parties and anti-war activists recognize around the world. As the conflict in Iran heightens, it becomes clear that NATO buildup is being used to bomb elementary schools like Minab, all riding off of the far-right slide and militarization campaigns that only service western billionaires.
None of this is “pro-Russia.” Labeling any socialist views as being “foreign influenced” is a time-tested method of cracking down on any form of anti-war, anti imperialist, pro-labor activism for centuries.
Putting aside the fact that OP’s idea is a vile edgy fantasy, this “anti‐war activism” is frequently a veneer for this narrative: US is effectively solely at fault, Russia’s invasion is justified, the west should stop aiding Ukraine and let Russia win. This is the position I’ve seen from .ml users.
And it’s not easy to not see that as indeed being pro‐Russian.
I linked 3 statements, from the DSA, Breakthrough News, and PSL, on the west’s position with respect to the Russo-Ukrainian war. All 3 draw attention to the long-understood role NATO and western countries made in provoking the conflict in the first place. The belief on the left is that war is most commonly caused by the continuous swelling of the military industrial complex, and the insaitable necessity for expansion and plundering other countries.
Ukraine is getting hollowed out for parts by western countries, who provoked the war in the first place, and are pushing for Ukraine to continue fighting “to the last Ukrainian” rather than work towards a negotiated settlement. None of this position is based on support for Russia as a founding reason, yet those who cannot actually argue against these positions frequently try to dodge the anti-war and pro-peace argument by claiming it’s somehow the work of Russian influence.
There’s good reason both the DSA and PSL largely agree about NATO’s role, as well as Die Linke, PTB, Breakthrough News, etc. It’s because this didn’t come from nowehere, the west has done this over and over again around the world repeatedly. It’s an observed pattern, with the only agency allowed internally to stop this is to advocate against the far-right slide and increased militarism.
Per DSA:
So, pretty much as I said. Let Russia win and call it the anti‐war position, lol.
Ohhh, evil western exploiters… Unlike the humane Russia that wouldnt hollow it out at all.
It might not be the founding reason, but the outcome is the same.
A negotiated settlement is the best path forward for the Ukrainian people, who have been used by NATO countries as a battering ram to encircle and oppose Russia. This is not a “pro-Russia” stance, it’s a deliberate wish to end the war as soon as possible with as little bloodshed as possible. This is pure “peace is war” doublespeak on your part.
Saying stuff that nearly perfectly aligns with the official Russian narrative and military goals, and yet mechanically insisting that your stance is not pro‐Russian, is just not terribly convincing.
There’s at least one other option to end the war as soon as possible – having Russia cease the invasion. But in the pro‐Russian narrative, that option is not on the table, since the invasion was justified and necessary. It is not Russia that you want to see giving up, but Ukraine.
A ceasefire that gives concessions to a genocidal aggressor that is likely to attack again afterwards to get the rest of what it wanted is a pretty worthless peace, there’s nothing doublespeak about that conclusion. E.g. I also wouldn’t be advising Stalin to go beg Hitler for a ceasefire and giving concessions to the Third Reich while the Wehrmacht was encircling Leningrad, even though continuing and properly ending the war would and in fact did cost hundreds of thousands of lives – as tragic as it was, it was the correct decision, rather than some grotesque peace treaty. So spare me this selective pacifism.
Reread the statements I linked. The DSA and PSL are very different organizations, same with PTB and Die Linke, and yet they all focus on how to best bring an end to the war in a practical manner from their own positions as western organizations. None of them have power over what Russia does or does not do, but all can influence the continued warmongering and militarization of NATO. Only four countries recognize Russia as genocidal in the Russo-Ukrainian war:
And that’s because the Russo-Ukrainian war has, among modern conflicts, had a remarkably low civilian death count on both sides. What this means is that a swift and expedient settlement is the best that organizations in the west can actually push for to help the people of Ukraine, people who do not wish to keep fighting for western billionaires to plunder minerals. Further still, Donetsk and Luhansk already want to join Russia. Even if Kiev succeeded in pushing Russia back and getting them to surrender, Kiev would still be right back to the civil war it was in for 8 years prior to Russia entering the war.
The best case scenario for working class Ukrainians, as well as the people in the Donbass, is a negotiated settlement now. This is something socialist parties and anti-war activists recognize around the world. As the conflict in Iran heightens, it becomes clear that NATO buildup is being used to bomb elementary schools like Minab, all riding off of the far-right slide and militarization campaigns that only service western billionaires.
None of this is “pro-Russia.” Labeling any socialist views as being “foreign influenced” is a time-tested method of cracking down on any form of anti-war, anti imperialist, pro-labor activism for centuries.