Marxism and the National Question

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

Only thing missing there is the shared territory due to the occupation. I don’t tend to believe that the Rhinelanders share a language or common culture with France, for example. Other than that, balkanized Germany at the Polish border would serve less geopolitical interests than if they had managed to secure a neutral buffer country, with the possibility of an eventual SED victory.

I haven’t read either yet, as I haven’t had much time, but as a methodological side note I just want to say I really enjoy this “tribune” style of usage of the forum. Having well thought out polemics is part of the development of a correct line.

I’ll try to read them both carefully later, but right now I just want to compliment the effort put forward by both users.

Please be careful not to conflate the official confirmation with Kots’s writing that you’re quoting in the OP. This whole “they swore to never be captured” thing is not officially confirmed and there should be a disclaimer about that.

Other than that, I think it’s fair to assume this must’ve been happening since this November announcement:

“From that moment, the Ukraine conflict previously provoked by the West acquired elements of a global nature, just as we warned more than once,” Putin said on Thursday, in a televised address to the nation.

Source: https://www.rt.com/news/607999-putin-ukraine-conflict-global/

It makes sense that they participated in some combat, and I’m wondering why other anti-US countries like Venezuela aren’t at the very least sending generals to get some experience there.

Edit: Alexander Kots’s Wikipedia page is really funny:

Alexander Igorevich Kots (Russian: Александр Игоревич Коц; born 3 September 1978) is a Russian propagandist, fascist and war criminal promoting aggressive wars against independent states and genocide of their population.[a] He reports mostly for the tabloid newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda and on his own channel on Telegram.

a: According to various international media such as Voice of America, British BBC, Ukrainian media, Israeli, Belarusian and others.

I’m guessing you are asking this from a US perspective.

The Practical Policy of Revolutionary Defeatism

First: Get yourself organised. Action without organisation is either liberalism, anarchism or adventurism. Join the FRSO or the PSL.

Second: your organisation should organise against the war by agitating against the state itself and for peace, but also by hampering the capabilities for continued war, through strikes, protests, road blockages and whatever else is an acceptable method for your organisation.

Third: Survive yourself but also help others survive. Whatever was the US engages in now, there’ll be a severe economic impact due to deindustrialization. Your organisation should act to help those most in need, which serves a double function of cementing which side the communists are on (the proletariat) against the interests of the parties with state control.

As a side note, it honestly confuses me how much I need to remind people on a Marxist-Leninist forum that getting organised is the first step. I don’t know if this is a cultural US liberal thing of thinking oneself too unique for a movement or too good for a middling party, but that’s what it seems like. I’d understand if the complaint was “I don’t have time for militancy” but it’s usually just “the parties are bad” like a good party is just going to spontaneously manifest itself.