Its kinda hilarious how slow libs comprehend stuff. We are talking about like 15 years late here since Libya giving up their nuclear program ended up in their demise.
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
47 points (100.0% liked)
The Deprogram
1843 readers
141 users here now
"As revolutionaries, we don't have the right to say that we're tired of explaining. We must never stop explaining. We also know that when the people understand, they cannot but follow us. In any case, we, the people, have no enemies when it comes to peoples. Our only enemies are the imperialist regimes and organizations." Thomas Sankara, 1985
International Anti-Capitalist podcast run by an American, a Slav and an Arab.
Rules:
- No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome; this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
- No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
- No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, Strasserists, Duginists, etc).
- Use c/mutual_aid for mutual aid requests.
Resources:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The curse of being right too early for libs to accept.
Not for nothing but I feel pretty confident that Ukraine would still control Crimea and the entire Donbas if they hadn't given up theirs.
- Ukraine never had nuclear weapons, it was under the nuclear umbrella of the russian SFSR, the nukes, launchers and codes were never in ukrainian hands. The russian security guarantees post USSR were only valid for as long as ukraine would remain a sovereign state, so moot post 2014.
- Ukraine is fascist state currently. Stop simping for them and wishing for nazis with nukes.
- Ukraine was in the process of ethnically cleansing its russian minority. Had Ukraine had nukes the Ukrainian equivalent of the Nakhba would have happened. So not only are you simping for fascists, you are also implicitly siding with Isreal just because it has a nicer coat of paint now.
- Crimea left on its own devices because the coup government did everything to piss the locals off. That would have happened in any case. Crimea always disliked to be part of Ukraine and voted to leave multiple times after the end of the USSR, its continued presence within the ukranian state was bases on the premise that Kiev would not start shit with Russia and the russian language language would receive equal treatment as the ukrainian language as offical language of the state. Both was pissed away by Kiev in 2014.
- The Donbas did the same, but was to slow to fuck off because Kiev sent in the death squads faster.
I'm pretty sure Ukraine's weapons were unusable as they didn't have the codes to fire them but yeah
Jup the nuculear arms of the USSR were in the hands of the russian SFSR, the other SSRs were under its nuclear umbrella.
That too lol
It's slowly becoming a mainstream opinion that only nuclear weapons can lead to true sovereignty.
Unfortunately, in a world where empire does as it pleases, the logic is sound. It is the most cost effective military deterrence there is. The scourge of nuclear proliferation will once again hang over our heads for the foreseeable future.
It's a really easy idea to drop in a conversation with libs and have them shrug and say "yeah, shit, I guess you're right."
If you actually read End of History, it isn't so much a celebration of the new liberal order as it is a pessimistic prediction of a permanent, stable unjust world order. Less "We did it guys, history is over!" and more "Maybe Marx was wrong about the inevitability of Socialism and this is all there ever will be for the end of time. And that kind of blows."
I would compare his viewpoint to that of Frank Herbert, author of Dune. He is an Anticommunist not in the sense that he believes Communism is bad, but in the sense that Socialism does not represent a new, stable mode of production that will inevitably rise from the old, but that the facets of the current system - states, corporations, families, etc. - are the stable entities that will stand the test of time.
In my political scientist tier list I put him firmly in the "Wrong but not bad" tier.
Whoa that's interesting, never knew that Fukuyama didn't really praise the liberal end-state he thought was reached.
When he made such a terrible mistake that it became a joke, he had two options: learn or live in mediocrity.
He’s been listening to TrueAnon.