I'm glad to see that Barotba got some press in other media for it's analysis. Barotba is, of course, the organization that the League for the Fifth International identified early on as the one who had the most cognizant take on the Ukrainian situation AND the most fundamental Bolshevik style action program for the country. The League also started working WITH Barotba early on to organize resistance to the fascists both in Ukraine and worldwide. League sections are active in the anti-fascist coalitions noted in the article too.

Now, I'm not sure that I agree wholeheartedly with the take that the Russian Federation is NOT imperialist. I still think it is imperialist in attitude, but it's definitely not as developed in it's imperial ambitions as the EU and the USA is. Because it is undeveloped in it's imperialism, Russia has limited itself to smaller steps than the western imperialisms. The Crimean example IS an example of imperialist thinking, even if the people of Crimea welcomed the annexation. Crimea has something that Russia needed (a warm water port) which is why they exploited the Crimean unrest and supported the drive toward annexation. But the lack of real Russian support for the Ukrainian rebels, even the rebels that are actually "pro-Russian" and not just anti-fascist, shows that Russia and Putin doesn't want to take on the problems inherent in Ukraine. They don't, however, want a western imperial presence on their southern border either, especially one that's heavily influenced by fascism. So in the sense that they are protecting their sphere of influence, they are imperialist thinkers.

I also disagree that there needs to be a revival of the USSR, no matter what the nostalgia for that. That regime was Stalinist to the core and should never be repeated. However, the way he described the new USSR he envisioned with it's internationalism and bottom up working class democracy is actually more in keeping with the Trotskyist perspective on revolution and party organization. So I suppose it could be just a question of semantics.

Anyway, thanks again for the post.

with everything in the article either but I would say we (the West) forced Russia's hand in Crimea when we instigated the coup in Ukraine. I realized I am in the minority in the West on this but I think the neocon project to destroy Russia is still going on and we should be minding our our business. When our leaders start talking about concern for the people of another nation I always wonder why they don't start with concern with people living within 5 miles of the Capitol building. The interior of most our major cities look like they have been destroyed by war. The reason we
won't address it is because we would have to take a hard look at capitalism itself.

Not to mention the MIC must be justified and used to support our corporate interests and last years sequestration cuts scared the poop out of the hawks.

Peace.

forced the issue. They backed the oligarchs in western Ukraine who were the prime financiers of the Maiden movement. IOW, those oligarchs were the ones who paid and financed the fascists who were the prime movers on the streets during the Maiden. And of course, they did it with EU and USA support.

You're spot on in your assessment on why they won't look at the problems in this country. But then again, I don't think that they care one whit about the problems of the working class and the poor ANYWHERE in the world. Those problems have nothing to do with the operation of capitalism.

Gotta run my friend.

Have a great day.

And thanks again for the original post.

Just because the state detremines the main roles in the Russian economy does not mean it is not an Empire. The modern Ukraine regime might be thugs, but they would not have traction were it not for how the USSR literally starved Ukrainians back in the early days. Straving a people to feed the rest of the country as Imperial as it gets.

"Near Abroad": Stalin was focused more on getting obedient buffer states between him and the Western "Bloc" than on conquering the globe; Russia still wants everyone on its borders to be at least in sync: the "nation-state" is absolutely not its unit of analysis: to Moscow the former USSR is basically one big unit, with Moscow's sovereignty happening to extend only up to the borders of the former RSFSR+Crimea; in Russian eyes Abkhazia, Crimea, and Ossetia are autonomous units--period, not autonomous units controlled entirely and by right by Tbilisi or Kiev; to Moscow it's all the same whether Karakalpakstan goes to Kazakhstan or stays Uzbek, since it was arbitrarily assigned to that SSR back in the 30s; Poland and Slovenia can be sovereign countries or republics in a federal superstate for all they care
China's foreign policy is even more hierarchical, Beijing at the middle of a mandala of provinces, Sinicized satellites, "barbarian" tributary realms, and wildlings kept out by deserts and walls
Washington's foreign policy is typically done by people who don't see other countries as REAL places--Kuwait or Congo or Mozambique empty stages for us to "fight" Saddam or Brezhnev (even when we're not), with some resources under them; presidents can be swapped out, generals greenlit for assassination, business elites wooed because ultimately Foggy Bottom
even classic colonialism can get tricky, since there's liabilities under any profits: Africa wasn't profitable (i.e., sufficiently exploited) for Britain and France until the 1920s, and India and industrialized Canada still outshone the rest of the Empire