Because I disagree with the term. The admins are not “tankies,” they are Marxist-Leninists.

What makes someone a “tankie” is that they “defend” certain states. In practice, “defending” often includes just refuting misinformation, for example, if I refute that “everyone in North Korea gets the same haircut” then I’m “defending” it and therefore a “tankie.” It can also mean acknowledging accomplishments, saying any good thing about any socialist state, like, “Cuba had a very successful literacy program,” which is just an objective historical fact. “Tankie” is supposed to mean someone who blindly supports everything a socialist state has ever done, in practice, it means someone who supports anything a socialist state has ever done.

Before it was “tankie” it was “pinko,” and before that “red.” That kind of red scare bullshit has allowed blatant misinformation to run rampant, because even rational people avoid pushing back on it for fear of being labelled a “tankie.” As stories about how all communists eat babies or whatnot run rampant, it has in turn hurt the reputation of both leftists and liberals, because it literally doesn’t matter how hard you try to distance yourself from the far-left, you’ll still get associated with it. Joe Biden got called a communist for Christ’s sake. To put it another way:

Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being “smeared” as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations.

The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by “communist subversives” or “loyal American liberals.” All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent.

• Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds

That is why I put “tankie” in quotes.

Lol the admins for .ml are %100 tankies, calling them Marxist-leninists is just a kinder term for “western children who excuse the authoritarian actions of dictators they agree with”. Trying to change history because it doesn’t put russia or china in a good light or trying to call the shit they do as “western propaganda” is just being a tankie.

End of the day, you tankies want to be the ones sending others to the gulags and think you’d be in power in your coming revolution. To bad you’re a microscopic portion of the population that agrees with you and your authoritarian logic.

You’re just the “left” wing version of maga, ignorant and will excuse your dear leaders of any wrong doing while sticking your fingers in your ears shouting fake news.

the left version of maga are the democrat die hards.

never met a war they didn’t support when it was team blue doing it.

Naa tankies are just as bad. You excuse the invasion of Ukraine by russia and all the other countries russia wants to attack… looking like Latvia is next on putins list, and I’m sure you’ll suggest they deserve it as well. You’re just as war mongering as maga is.

Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers.

It’s no different from when I was labelled a “terrorist sympathizer” or seen as “supporting 9/11” when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a “tankie” for that reason, because if you don’t want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as “peaceful.”

Real “war is peace” hours.

So that was a lot of words to say nothing.

Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine?

It’s the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin’s aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn’t get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date.

It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself.

Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine?

No. No more than I “supported” Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war.

It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself.

I don’t believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right.

Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even “defensive” wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a “tankie,” while you’re the one arguing that we didn’t build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described, “war is peace.”

I don’t believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right.

It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally.

It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian.

There’s just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started.

Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even “defensive” wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger

Your endgame argument is national states shouldn’t exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone.

It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally.

It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles.

What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate.

As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them.

Disagree.

Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone.

So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win?

Yeah, no. It’s not a fight over having war machines or not, it’s a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that.

What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate.

That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They’re two different conflicts.

That’s complete and total nonsense.

That’s not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it “a different conflict” when you do.

I can’t believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It’s completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that’s not how anything works.