WageSlave

Russia is in decline though, economically and demographically speaking. Their economy is for the most part based on export of resources, largely gas and oil. Although they are making great profits due to OPEC and the war inflating the oil prices, they have not many options to transition their economy when oil and gas becomes obsolete, which will happen at some point in the future. As for right now, their population pyramid is not suggesting some major economic boom incoming, rather a multitude of problems which we always observe in capitalist societies with declining populations.

EDIT: Also, I do not align my views blindly after DPRK nor anyone else. Having read, and agreed with, so many socialists stating the need to educate and think for ourselves, I find this point odd. It is just a tautological statement to say that DPRK is always right.

I think a characteristic property of nazism is that it is intolerant and does not allow for opposition, hence the silent opposition has to be careful and smart in how to actually voice or act their opposition given that the nazists are empowered. That does not mean they are supporting them or in any way guilty themselves. They are victims like everyone else. By extension of this logic, everyone living in a capitalist society too impoverished to fight it are capitalists themselves, which is blatantly false.

Nazis should be opposed all day, every day, everywhere. I am saying that there is a human cost to doing so through war, making it not the best (though sometimes necessary) way. Also, I think it is as much nazi apologist to buy into the Ukrainians are nazis propaganda as calling Putin for Putler, as stated above. Generally, nazism is a fringe ideology that has potential to gather a lot of common support if certain conditions are present. In a healthy environment nazis can be ridiculed, outed and opposed with ease due to their intolerant and inconsistent ideology being easy to take apart with words or fists if necessary. I think it is just as racist to call common Ukranians for nazists as it is to talk about "oriental despotism" as I was accused of above, both of which I for the record vehemently oppose.

1. Good point, I should have made the distinction. I still feel it does not change the sentiment much as Putin very much represents his group and class.
2. I tried to make the point that he has transitioned from a labor aristocrat to an oligarch through his rise to power. I do not think it is delusional to think that money and power are two sides of the same coin in Russia as well as any other capitalist society.
3. Musk and Bezos have both been the richest person in the world, though. The numbers are shaky, but the ballpark as the top of the top economical elite is right. I think that calculation of value of assets is hard, but it suffices to say that Putin is part of an economic class above most others.
4. Technically, I think you are correct. Taking basis in the definition "a military leader who controls a country or, more often, an area within a country" it might be inaccurate since Putin is a president and not say a general. Though I am admittedly unsure of the official status of the president of the Russian federation with regards to the military in the case of war and in my country, the head of state (which is a ceremonial role), is in fact also the official head of military in case of war. Either way, I think it is clear that Putin has much control in his group of oligarchs and aristocrats, which include people leading the armed forces, making him a defacto leader of the military as well.
5. I do not think these points are mutually exclusive. I do think Putin is a megalomanial leader who also happens to do a lot of the stuff you have said. That still does not excuse what I perceive to be his imperial ambitions and consequently does not garner my support. Ultimately I do not think the regime is a force for good as a whole and I think the issues with it are downplayed and the inadvertent upsides exaggerated. This is maybe the core of my disagreement with some of the other assessments and I am open to me being ignorant on some of the parts of this argument.
6. I am pretty conflicted on idealism vs pragmatism, usually resorting to idealism though I admit that might be because it is easier for me to swallow. However, I do think we need to be clear that enemy of my enemy being a friend does not mean two wrongs always makes a right. Sometimes it does, but as I have written many places I do not think the war benefits the proletariat in any tangible way.
7. Thank you for not dismissing me and for trying to answer me in a clear and respectful manner. I am equally grateful for your effort as well as your politeness.

Putin was a bureaucrat first and then a career politician.

Yes, and since the premise is that Russia is not a socialist state and there are oligarchs with massive amounts of wealth and power, thinking the most successful career politician of the state not to be influenced by and using money as a means to political ends is weird. I do not conflate his person with the state, though after consolidating power they can sometimes be hard to distinguish. The wealth referenced is not what is owned by the state, which was in large part sold out as you said in the 90s, but what is held by him directly and solely.

There are a lot of wars started by Putin, which is why I call him a warlord. As I wrote in other comments, does the want for control over a sphere of influence justify attacking neighboring states to the extent done by Putin? If the states attacked were flawed, is it still something to cheer for given the state of Russia's political line today? When capitalist nations go to war, the young and the poor die.

A large number of Russian neonazis have gone over to the side of Ukraine and are now fighting against Russia.

Yes, but if a nazi agrees with anyone, does that make that person a nazi guilty by association? I think there are a lot of Ukranians lumped in unfairly as nazis by your statement. It is not a war against nazism, it is a war for power and control, like most are. Even though the US and UK said they went to war against nazism during WWII, they mostly did for power, control and necessity. Is there no due diligence to be taken when considering statements from Putin?

Russia is not in any qualitative or quantitative way more authoritarian or reactionary than the US, and in many ways it is less so.

And I think that just like we do not cheer for US invasions of other countries, we should not cheer for Russian invasions either.

Conflicts between nations do not start because one person felt like starting a war. They are the result of complex processes and contradictions, often having built up for a long time. (...) This conflict did not start in 2022, it started at least as far back as 2014. (...) the West, as has now been admitted, never had any intentions of negotiating in good faith and did everything it could to push Russia toward war (...) the UN article on collective self-defense, making their intervention legal by international law and defensive.

There is room for a lot more nuance I will admit, that does not mean that it is false that Putin has said that he wants to retake the original borders of the Soviet Union, not for the purpose of restoration of the socialist state, but for the purpose of imperial ambition only. This can not be discarded as a reason for the war. I never stated that the war started in 2022, it started way earlier as you have said. It still escalated to unfathomable proportions in 2022 as a full scale invasion. I do not think the EU was nor is very happy about the war given how damaging economically it is to them. The economic downfall of the EU, and its citizens, due to the war, is damaging them a lot on the global stage when they already had unresolved economical and political issues. If anything, it has been US gain at the expense of the EU, since they have now increased manufacturing costs and the US can import back industry to sovereign lands in an attempt to rival China. Lastly I do not think the war is internationally recognized as just and legal. International law is only the agreement of nations, mostly those of the security council, it does not represent a moral law, actual law and even so the war is not in accordance with it.

We support Russia’s anti-fascist intervention not only on moral and legal grounds but more importantly because it is a major blow against US imperialism itself, and we recognize it as a fact that US imperialist hegemony is the biggest obstacle to socialism and socialist states everywhere. A defeat for NATO in this proxy war is a victory for the global proletariat. Anti-imperialist, anti-fascist struggle IS class war. Like the first cold war, this new cold war of the US against Russia and China represents a global dimension of the class war.

I have issues with this point as well, mainly that advancing Russian imperialism is not going to stifle NATO and US imperialism by anything. Military, the only one that may compete for hegemony is China at this point, and that is still some time off. Calling anything related to this war a a victory for the proletariat makes me a little sick. The proletariat in Russia and Ukraine are dying right now and the west have issued massive investments in their military production. Across the whole of EU, with Germany at the forefront, we see plans to make their military capabilities an order of magnitude stronger. This will not bring peace, not an end to western military hegemony and not victory for the proletariat.

All this being said, I really do thank you for your response and giving the benefit of the doubt.

I am most definitely trying to learn and understand here. That being said really can not understand how calling out Putin is in any way me not being a comrade. I sincerely hope you do not think Putin should get a free pass and support for opposing the US. If that is sufficient and necessary for your support, then I don't think you are as much comrades as anti US. There are so many cases of the US being in the wrong and doing terrible stuff, yet instead of talking about those issues they are neglected and only used to support a regime that is in no capacity any better than the capitalist terror regime of the US.

Most definitely USSR and Russia are wildly different and continuity broke long ago. The characterization of anti Russian sentiments as racist and propagating american propaganda is wrong: First off, the Russian people are wonderful people who right now gets the bad end of the stick due to their leader not acting in their interest, which is no surprise he is not part of their class and has shown he only cares for power and money like ANY capitalist would.

Second, there is something to be said about how we cannot let accusations that a counter movement to a regime is backed by the US have us default to opposition to the movement. The ideals of the movement can be true and fair and deserve support, even if the accusation is true or false. You are talking about Russia's border and their right to intervene as if it was their sovereign territory. It is not, and this faulty logic is the same as used by the US to justify atrocities in middle and south America.