Personally I (critically) support Russia, plain and simple. Others have gone into the details anyone with sense understands, so I won’t expand on them (other than noting my opinion is Russia was not belligerent, and has not been imperialist since the fall of the Tsars, nor colonialist in any sense of the word remotely comparable to that of the Zionist entity or Anglo settler-regimes).

Russia has its problems, and Putin is still a lib (albeit one who is, perhaps, on a path to something somewhat resembling recovery, minus the social conservatism which while unjustified is a pretty common reaction across the global south to western pinkwashed imperialism).

But I see supporting Russia in its resistance against imperialism- against its ethnic kin being genocided (the only reason there’s any debate to be had over it is due to Russian support preventing the worst of it, though they have still been subject, undeniably, of attempts at cultural genocide, countless war crimes, and what can only be described as pogroms), and it itself carved up and returned to the days of shock therapy, I see supporting Russia’s struggle against the west as such as merely a matter of basic decency.

After all, wouldn’t we support Iran, Yemen, or Afghanistan in their similar struggles? Or even India, flawed and debatably descending into fascism as it is? Looking back in hindsight also, it would only be natural to support the Ethiopians (even if it was the monarchy) in their struggle against the Italians, or the human-sacrificing Aztecs and Maya in their struggle against the Spanish, or the Qing in their struggles against the various western and Japanese imperialists, or even the Japanese in their initial struggles to resist and throw off the yoke of unequal treaties (before they joined the ranks of the imperialists themselves).

Anti-imperialism is simply a matter of basic decency, and recognizing that Russia’s struggle in this case is anti-imperialist in every sense of the word is a matter of common sense (sadly not common enough).

I mean, I don’t think the war in Donbas was “genocide” by most common definitions. It was the reckless slaughter of a minority group, and that’s borne out just by looking at the magnitude of civilian casualties. imo the argument for invading on behalf of the breakaway regions is not that those regions were being subjected to genocide, but that they should be entitled to self determination in response to ongoing cultural repression, and if Ukraine is going to try to then surpress them militarily, Ukraine should be suppressed militarily (while trying to negotiate for peace, of course).

Because the country suffered an American coup d’état in 2014. The coup was used to install an anti-Russian government and repress progressive forces, like the Communist Party of Ukraine. After 2014, Ukraine ceased to be an independent country, and became a proxy of the US. A proxy to be used in Washington’s strategy of encircling and destroying Russia. This war was always going to happens, but Russia invaded Ukraine to make sure it happens on Russia’s terms, instead of American.

Also imo, the dream of an independent Ukraine is long gone. Because of US interference, Ukraine can only survive by being a part of Russia, or by remaining a lackey of the US and EU.

Esha K has filmed a short documentary in the Donbass, I think this is it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTiibGdsHus. I haven’t watched it yet myself but it documents what’s been happening for the past 10 years and I assume it talks about genocide at some point, knowing Esha. I get from your wording that you know about the Donbass War but are asking if it constitutes genocide specifically. On that we can do a two-for-one, and point to the UN definition of genocide: destroying or intending to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic group. However, that is where I limit my agreement with the UN. I don’t believe they are capable arbiters of genocide, and I don’t rely on an authority other than my own to recognize genocide. So the question isn’t does international law (the UN) say it’s genocide, but do you personally believe Ukraine was specifically targeting civilians in the Donbass with the intent to destroy the ethnic Russians living there. Ukrainians in the Donbass are by and large ethnically Russian and I assume you know the history of the Euromaidan coup that put a Ukrainian fascist in power who started the war in the Donbass, and the two People’s Republics being formed as a response to those military attacks on civilian populations.

I imagine for evidence you might want testimonies and the historical record, if the documentary doesn’t go into it (like I said haven’t watched it yet!) just looking up the “missions” of the Azov Battalion prior to 2022 should open up some avenues of further exploration.

The reason you might have heard that Ukraine provoked Russia is probably because of the two agreements that were signed, called Minsk I and Minsk II, to put an end to the war. They were brokered with Russia’s help (and some Western observers), and Ukraine signed the agreements but, at the first opportunity, completely ignored them. The failure of Minsk II is actually what started the Russian invasion. Minsk I was supposed to start a ceasefire, and Minsk II would have gone further by giving autonomy to Luhansk and Donetsk.

You can also find a bit more about it here: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/2022_Russo-Ukrainian_conflict but tbh we could really expand that page lol

No person should support one side without reason. If you ask why a communist should take the side of russia, its actually very simple. Forget all the moral reasons, for they are secondary. From the end of the WWII until today, American (and to a minor degree european too) imperialism has taken power over the world. Imperialism is the most developed form of capitalist domination. Russia is fighting against it. Simple as that.

In addition to the answers you’ve gotten already, here’s some links that may be of interest to you.

How did the whole war in the Donbas start? Why did Donets and Luhansk declare independence?

According to Lenin’s definition of imperialism, is the Russian Federation imperialist?

PSL Statement on Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine

Prolewiki page on the war

Most of these links are a few years old already, but at a glance they appear to me to still be relevant. I’m unfortunately busy with work so I can’t take a more in-depth look at the moment, but hopefully this will still be of some value.

I don’t care too much about the Russian Federation, but I oppose Ukraine because it’s a corrupt dictatorship ruled by genuine neo-nazis that’s been robbing the US taxpayers for years. Also I’m pretty sure it’s used for a bunch of illegal shit like unsanctioned disease labs and human trafficking rings.

I’ve answered this before. Copypastaing myself.

Honest question from a non-communist, based on your reply here. Does one need to support Putin to be a Marxist?

In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.

Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US. So now the support for Russia is in the context of keeping the colonizers from recolonizing it, and supporting Russia to the extent that it helps other states liberate themselves. But Russia isn’t trying to “liberate” Ukraine, at least not all of Ukraine. It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.

• Robert Parry, 2015: The Mess that Nuland Made
• Jeffery Sachs, 2023: The War in Ukraine Was Provoked—and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace

Also, Ukraine really does have a fascism problem and has for a long time, and the coup government has materially supported it.

• BBC, 2014: Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict
• Human Rights Watch, 2014: Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians
• The Hill, 2017: The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda
• The Guardian, 2017: ‘I want to bring up a warrior’: Ukraine’s far-right children’s camp – video
• WaPo, 2018: The war in Ukraine is more devastating than you know
• Reuters, 2018: Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem
• The Nation, 2019: Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine
• openDemocracy, 2019: Why Ukraine’s new language law will have long-term consequences
• Jacobin, 2022: A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War
• Consortium News, 2022: Evidence of US-Backed Coup in Kiev
• Al Jazeera, 2022: Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties?
• History of Fascism in Ukraine: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

While I do prefer the Russian Federation over Ukraine’s régime, I am reluctant to term this preference ‘support’, unless you think that dismissing various demonizations of the Russian Federation counts as such. Materially, I’ve never supported the Russian Federation with anything, but I do defend it against demonizations since demonizations are exactly what make lower‐class people think that it’s okay to continue wasting their tax dollars on a neoimperialist client state: the Ukrainian government.

As much as I loathe the Russian government, its invasion of Ukraine was not a naked power grab in the style of WWI, but the inevitable consequence of the Western bourgeoisie breaking its promise not to continue expanding eastward. The Western bourgeoisie has long spelled out its long‐term goal of balkanizing the Russian Federation, and many Ukrainian neofascists have done likewise. Such a partition would only benefit the Western upper classes at the lower classes’ expense.

For me, the goal is not so much to ‘support Russia’ per se as it is to weaken neoimperialism and hopefully convince others to stop giving up their resources to a neoimperialist client state when those resources could be better spent on services and products that we need here and now as lower‐class North Americans. I suppose that somebody could argue that I’m splitting hairs here since opposing neoimperialism effectively means supporting the Russian Federation, but I think that saying ‘I support Russia’ would be too vague and misleading to be helpful.

We do not support Russia (it’s pretty shit), but Russia’s victory would be better for socialism by undermining American hegemony and destroying extremely anticommunist regime in Kiev.

you shouldn’t.
there are many people who call themselves marxist-leninists on this site who do not subscribe to anything marx or lenin had to say about inter-imperialist conflict.
communists and marxists and leninists always seek peace above all else.
the only war worth fighting is class war and the inter-imperialist rivalry won’t benefit the working class.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/feb/08.htm

as a bonus, this speech is particularly prophetic. lenin calls calls out basically the next 100 years of US foreign policy in 1917.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/may/14.htm

the only thing the people who call ourselves marxists leninists should be hoping for is a quick peace, a lasting peace, and a humiliating peace for both sides so that the army mutinies and makes proletarian seizure of state power possible (like happened in russia, angola, mozambique, etc.)

even tho virtue signalling is what most people here support, they have decided to support the russian government who made domestic abuse entirely legal and who criminalize queer identities freely expressing. condemning russia’s government is not endorsing ukraine’s.

some of the things that i want to say here will not differentiate from the other comments in this thread, though as a russian citizen and cprf member i hope that it will offer some insight for western readers.

i do not support the current administrations internal actions, as capitalism has brought nothing but injustice, suffering, poverty, crime and corruption. but i absolutely do support its foreign policy, especially regarding the ukrainian question. the putin government has evolved to become one of the most effective anti-imperialist forces on the planet and even if you ignore the terrible nature of the terrorist zelensky-regime one has to be grateful to our military for fighting the biggest enemy of mankind, america.

so lets detail the happenings that led to the current situation:

(it may be important to note that the current russian administration pushes a slightly different narrative due to sadly being a right wing state)

• the banderites (see picture), members of the fascist “organization of ukrainian nationalists” led by stepan andreyevich bandera were a gang of rapists and murderers who collaborated with the invading german hordes and assisted them by conducting acts of terror against civilians. It is important to note that popular support for them was close to zero.
• after the victory of the heroic red army, the majority of those parasites fled to the west, predominantly to canada. they received funding from american and british intelligence agencies, which were more than happy to welcome “former” nazis into their own anti-communist ranks.
• another subset of the banderites remained in the ukrainian ssr and conducted a campaign of terror and sabotage against the civilian population. their bloody deeds were supported by the cia and its european puppet agencies through the so called “operation aerodynamic”.

referendum on the preservation of the ussr. its results were ignored by the anti-communists

• After the illegal and undemocratic dissolution of the ussr, the leaders of those fascist gangs were glorified by the ukrainian far-right, with support from the cia. efforts to further their “rehabilitation” were primarily directed by nazi expatriates in canada. outlets such as voice of america portrayed them as “heroes”.

results of the 2004 presidential election before cia intervention. this division between neonazi northwest and pro-russian southeast is visible to this day

• in 2004, the west sabotaged the ukrainian presidential elections and installed their puppet, viktor andreyevich yushchenko, through a color revolution. he was a terrible leader, not only dismantling the remaining aspects of the ukrainian economy and managing to make life even more miserable than it already was, but also granting “hero of ukraine” status to banderite leaders and holocaust perpetrators stepan bandera and roman iosifovich shukhevich.

• in 2014, america and the west orchestrated another coup, this time not even bothering to hide the involvement of neo-nazis. the new regime perpetrated unspeakable atrocities against the russian population, whom it consideres “subhuman,” as well as against ukrainian anti-fascists. in odessa alone, 39 people were burned alive in the local trade union building.
• those developments led to the revolution in the predominantly russian populated donbass-area and the creation off the donetsk and lugansk peoples republics, as well as the referendum in crimea that led to the peninsula finally rejoining russia. from 2014 till 2022 the majority of humanitarian aid to the donbass republics came from the cprf.
• the reason for the smo is the ukrainian western-aligned nazi regime violating the minsk accords by refusing to demilitarize, trying to join the fascist nato-block and murdering russian civilians for years on end. the russian government showed itself extremely lenient, to lenient even, as any sensible politician would have staged a military intervention much earlier. if you need further proof for the tyrannical nature of the kievan regime just look at the fact that zelenskiy has banned all opposition parties in his country, refuses to hold elections and effectively rules as a military dictator. furthermore he has outlawed the russian language, made any negotiation with the russian state illegal and is currently selling whatever is left of his country to the highest bidder.

combine all this with the fact that the west and its puppets need to always be opposed due to them being a cancer of humanity and youll get a pretty good picture of why to support the russian military.

I would never call what I am doing “support” for the Russian federation. Pointing out basic facts and chronology isn’t “support”.

And I don’t think it is relevant to even talk about this or that power being a “lesser evil”. The russian leadership’s reaction to the events from the 1990s to today have been entirely predictable. The events which led up to this war.

Far from being a cunning schemer looking to revive the Russian empire, Putin is closer to being a cornered rat (and he is a rat) who is forced to make a desperate move at the last minute when all else failed (repeated warning against nato expansion, the failures of the Minsk agreements, warning against Ukrainian militaristisation, trying peace talks which failed again and again, etc).

In fact, Putin is exactly the kind of idealistic Russian liberal that westerners wish would overthrow Putin. He thought that cozying up to the west (he even tried joining nato in the past) and selling his people to them would keep the west placated (and earn the Russian bourgeoise a seat at the table). It took him far too long to realise that the western leadership is not interested whatsoever in peace or equality.

The situation is actually kind of similar as the one in Israel. An entity with a history of belligerence and colonisation gets attacked. Liberals are unable to conceive of historical context and think that the immediate aggressors are some kind of super voldemort evil.