You're failing to separate "Ukraine" the concept of a nation from "Ukraine" the government from "Ukraine" the group of people. In material terms, if life as part of the Russian Federation is comparable to life as an independent Ukraine (and Crimea was doing alright when there wasn't much fighting), what does a war accomplish? Especially a war that the Ukrainian military was always going to lose. The end result is, as Yogthos said, incredible human suffering without even accomplishing the worthless task of keeping your preferred flag flying.
Now, I don't actually agree that Russia wants to annex all of Ukraine. I think they want to break the back of the military and annex as much of Ukraine as votes to join them, but handling the colonial occupation of a country that wants to secede (like Ukraine had been doing with Donbas) is not in its interests. That said, even if they just wanted to take over the whole of Ukraine, a negotiated peace that wins concessions for human welfare would, in every respect, be a superior result to a losing war unless you're a dog of the west and see damage to Russia as worth throwing generations into a meat grinder.
Edit: The reason why, to pick an example you probably are inclined towards, it was reasonable to fight desperately against the Nazis is twofold: One, the occupation represented a disastrous change for many, many inhabitants, such that few families would be untouched by the genocide (to say nothing of the national looting). Two, the Nazis were always likely to lose in the end because of their unstable model of operation, with many powerful enemies, meaning that one's own hopeless personal resistance contributed to the broader anti-Nazi struggle that would indeed come to a successful conclusion.
I've already said in so many words that Russian occupation is unlike Nazi occupation, and Russia does not seem poised to lose as the Nazis were, it's being careful about who it attacks and when, while continuing to cultivate stable alliances with other countries great and small in the imperial periphery and semi-periphery. The fight of the Ukrainian military both has nothing useful it could accomplish and no prospect of contributing to Russia's downfall (nor is there much reason Russia should be taken down ahead of the western bloc). It's pointless.
Me too, but I'd guess that it's because Ukraine is a somewhat younger country, since the US stopped using the draft in '73, about two decades before the current Ukrainian government was established, so they are operating on very different standards. Just a guess, though.
In fairness, the US isn't drafting people, let alone consigning draftees to certain death like Zelensky here is doing. It's probably my prejudice from the US draft age, but I'm surprised the minimum is so high still in Ukraine considering how desperate they are to field more men.
Obviously the US consigns plenty of people to certain death, but not by drafting them.
Iran had a consulate bombed and wants to establish to Israel that it's not allowed to do something like that. I don't see how anyone is "being played" by that.
Your only choice is to agitate among the people who are there. Lots of reactionary people are just inadequately educated, and things get much easier if you can build a small base of people. The people discouraging you are worthless doomers waiting for more-overt-fascists to take over, don't listen to them.
I hate the "collectivist" vs "individualist" framing, it's so loaded towards "individualism" when what people usually mean is atomization, meanwhile us so-called collectivists don't as the myth goes, believe in submitting one's individual interests to the Greater Good of The Collective, we believe that most people have most of their interests in common with other people and should work together to pursue those interests rather than against each other. Because of that, I prefer the framing that is loaded the other way of "pro-social" vs "anti-social". The people you describe are significantly anti-social and disliking individual corporations has no bearing on that.
A brutal crackdown on the ability of the bourgeoisie to influence elections, buy politicians, and hold office, such that liberals will crow about "human rights" and "freedom" being violated. We can draw fine distinctions between different systems, but fundamentally they still fall on the same side of the fence.
Yes, and that's good. How's your aristocratic pseudo-democracy, authored by elites (possibly slavers, depending on your country) who feared real democracy and passed down your present system, doing for you and the world?
Like, do you really look at how there's massive popular consensus to fight climate change, have better healthcare systems, stop genocidal wars, all of which your aristocratic politicians ignore, and then say "We need less democracy because muh mob rule"??
However what is important to remember is that the sanctions are imposed based on the regimes actions against it's population
I don't know every single sanction against the DPRK, but over the last 40 years the sanctions have all been in connection to nuclear development and things like that. Also, it's rich that you talk about communists being hypocrites while you take western powers at their word for why they are imposing sanctions that starve people by your own admission. The US has done and is doing much crueler things to the people of these states than the states themselves have ever done in any but the most unhinged fantasies.
Show me any state where there is an "equal competition for power" in any general sense. The Democrats and Republicans having similar degrees of power means nothing but a duopoly if they each exist above democracy as private entities (and they do) and there is no "equal" competition with more progressive groups.
idk, seems fine to me.