Russia wasn't playing defense, still isn't.
Yeeeeeaaaaahhhhh, I'd say it *was*, since its whole trajectory, post-Lenin, was to quickly industrialize and be militarily capable of defending itself -- hence the whole emphasis on *production* goods (means of mass industrial production), over consumer goods, even well after it industrialized. Remember that it not only beat the Nazis in WWII (militarily, etc.) but also got sucked into the Cold War missile-arms race, meaning that its priority was military parity with the U.S. / NATO, all the way to the bitter end (bankruptcy, basically).
You're just repeating yourself.
If you could counter the points I made, you would.
Okay, go ahead and itemize those / any points you have, and I'll pointedly respond in kind.
A quarter century after the war ended, the countries Russia conquered still had Russian soldiers in them, they were occupied.
Like where, exactly -- ? *Germany* -- ?
Maybe that's because it was *Nazi* Germany just a moment earlier, and was basically taken into 'receivership' by the two postwar superpowers, the U.S. and the USSR.
Here's from the historical material I already posted -- the Soviets favored a more *punitive* approach to the formerly Nazi Germany:
The Soviets took a punitive approach, pressing for a delay rather than an acceleration in economic rehabilitation, demanding unconditional fulfillment of all prior reparation claims, and pressing for progress toward nationwide socioeconomic transformation.
After six weeks of negotiations, Molotov rejected all of the American and British proposals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_ ... gotiations
So we might ask, today, what *would* have been the most-appropriate measures to exact on the Nazis, and on the collaborationists in the German population, and beyond, by extension.
The squeeze that resulted in the Berlin Airlift was not defensive.
I'd say yes-and-no -- by that point, post-WWII, the USSR had become a *superpower*, though still economically and militarily lesser than the U.S. and its NATO allies. The USSR still had to be defensive in the *Cold War*, though it was more of a 'silent partner' with the U.S. regarding postwar Germany.
The Berlin Blockade (24 June 1948 – 12 May 1949) was one of the first major international crises of the Cold War. During the multinational occupation of post–World War II Germany, the Soviet Union blocked the Western Allies' railway, road, and canal access to the sectors of Berlin under Western control. The Soviets offered to drop the blockade if the Western Allies withdrew the newly introduced Deutsche Mark from West Berlin.
Neither was the recent invasion of Ukraine.
You mean *Crimea* -- ?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexatio ... Federation
Why did both Ukraine and the U.S. support *fascists* in Euromaidan?
A telephone call was leaked of US diplomat Victoria Nuland speaking to the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt about the future of the country, in which she said that Klitschko should not be in the future government, and expressed her preference for Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who became interim Prime Minister. She also casually stated "fuck the EU."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaida ... in_Ukraine
Your horse is dead, you can stop beating it.
Yes, I'm going to have to repeat myself because you didn't hear me the first time around:
I don't defend superpower-Stalinism / late-Stalinism by that point, and I'll point to the *Hungarian Revolution* as a good example of counter-Stalinist political organizing and uprisings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian ... on_of_1956
And, the following is from a web search:
How the Bolsheviks Treated the National Question
ByRob Jones -April 6, 20202778
Rob Jones, Sotsialisticheskaya Alternativa (ISA in Russia)
A century after the October revolution, the approach of the Bolsheviks to resolving the national question remains a shining example of what could be achieved in resolving national conflicts if genuine socialist governments were to come to power across the world.
This is particularly the case when, under capitalist domination, the world in the 21st century has been ravaged by murderous conflicts in Darfur, the Congo, the Middle East. The national question has still not been satisfactorily resolved in Catalonia, Scotland, Ireland, Belgium and elsewhere and has fueled brutal conflicts in the Balkans, Caucasia, Central Asia and Ukraine.
Two brutal wars in Chechnya and the treatment of national minorities demonstrate that the ruling elite in modern capitalist Russia has nothing in common with the Bolsheviks. The recent attack in Surgut, the Siberian oil town, when a young Muslim run amok with a knife in a shopping centre is clearly the result of racist state policies and the actions of far-right extremists. Only recently riot police invaded a café in the town and forced young men there to shave their beards, claiming they could be Wahhabis. The Bolsheviks however, led by Lenin bent over backwards to support the rights of national and ethnic minorities. Way ahead of his time, Lenin even criticized the use in everyday language of national stereotypes such as the use of the word “Khokhol” to describe Ukrainians. Not only is this word still in widespread use, it was added to recently by official Russian propaganda which presented the Ukraine as a fascist state.
The language question
The Bolsheviks were very sensitive to the language question, taking conscious steps to support the use of minority languages. Lenin spoke against the recognition of specific languages as “state languages”, particularly when that meant that significant language minorities were discriminated against. Yet in complete contrast to this approach, the attempts by the new capitalist governments to restrict the use of the Russian language led to serious ethnic conflict in Moldova in the 1990s and serious tensions in the Baltic states. In President Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan, whenever social conflict has arisen, in particular during the Zhenaozen oil workers’ strike, he has leant on the so-called “National-patriots” and “National-democrats” (right-wing nationalists) to call for restrictions on the Russian language. Even the threat of restricting the use of Russian in Ukraine was enough to heighten the tensions that led to the conflict in East Ukraine. Hypocritically, the Putin government, which used the attack on the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine to intervene in East Ukraine has now announced that finance for the teaching of Russia’s many minority languages will cease. This is already causing discontent in republics such as Tatarstan.
Declaration on the Rights of the peoples of Russia*
Most of all, the Bolsheviks were principled proponents of the right of nations to self-determination. Within days of the October revolution, the Declaration on the Rights of the peoples of Russia was published. In contrast to the approach of modern diplomacy, in which different sides maneuver and disguise their real intent from the population, this revolutionary declaration stated in a clear, transparent and concise way that because the peoples of Russia have suffered such repression and misrule, freedom from pogroms, slavery and attacks should be immediately granted, decisively and irreversibly. There should be, it declared, the equality and sovereignty of the Russian nationalities, the right of the Russian peoples to self-determination up to and including the right to form their own states, the abolition of all and any national and religious privileges and restrictions supported by the free development of national minorities and ethnic groups populating Russian territory.
https://www.socialistalternative.org/20 ... -question/