Why are Western communists/socialist almost always aligning with genocidal and imperialist regimes while claiming the opposite

@markhburton@mstdn.social led me to Morning Star – a British media describing itself as “socialist and pacifist”, while in reality being a fantastic mine of abundant Russian propaganda which, as he claimed, “condemned the invasion of Ukraine but sees the bigger picture.”

Let's have a look at one such “bigger picture”, a very recent MS article^1 which not only engages in fierce victim blaming, but also repeats almost every single Russian fake that exists on that subject:

[what would] have happened if Russia had trained and helped organise a mission that attacked a nuclear weapons base in Britain or the United States

As a reminder, Russia had already conducted countless sabotages and assassinations on the territory of UE and UK since 2006, including ones conducted with weapons of mass destruction – potent military chemical weapons, radioactive isotopes. As a bonus, it had also blown up ammunition depots on NATO countries – Czechia and Bulgaria. What happened? Well, nothing.

it now seems that there were between three and five strategic bombers damaged

Satellite imagery now indicates 10-13 aircrafts completely destroyed and 20-40 damaged^2 What's the point of repeating Russian lies on even such a petty detail?

Most experts believe that the level of sophistication was such that it could not have been carried out by the Ukrainians alon

Where's those “most experts”? Who are they and why everything Ukraine has published about the details of the operation indicates it was conducted 100% on their own means?

It also came after seven people were killed and dozens injured after two bridges were targeted by the Ukrainians.

Once again, there's no evidence Ukraine targeted these bridges and the only reason why train passengers were killed was that nobody in Russia cared to stop the train during 30 minutes between the bridge collapse (22:20) and its arrival (22:50).^3

Ukrainian drones targeted the [Putin] helicopter during an unannounced late night flight over the tense border region of Kursk

Why does MS repeat verbatim Russian sensational posts on that subject a month after (!) Putin's visit to Kursk oblast', whereas contemporary coverage of that visit showed him traveling exclusively by cars, not by helicopter?^4 And that leaves out the primary question – why would the leader of Russia enjoy some kind of immunity, when Russian army continuously targeted president of Ukraine since 2022?

The enormity of the attack is entirely reckless. The bombers were on the tarmac and unprotected in line with the requirements of the New Start Treaty requirement, from 2010.

There's so much falsehoods here that they need to be unpacked one by one:

• Russia suspended its New Start Treaty membership, on its own will, in 2023, so its neither bound by its requirements, nor are its other members bound to any favours towards Russia.^5
• Ukraine is not a member of New Start Treaty and thus not bound by its requirements. One reason for that is that Ukraine in 1994 voluntarily gave away its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees, which Russia
• The treaty does not even require strategic aviation to be “on the tarmac and unprotected”
• Russia routinely uses its “strategic aviation” to bomb Ukraine with conventional warheads, which obviously removes the “strategic” (=nuclear) component from its usage pattern
• There's no treaty that says that offers an immunity to aggressor's aviation because it formally nominates is as “strategic” but routinely uses for daily bombing.

one of the fundamental reasons for the Russian invasion — the eastward expansion of the Nato military alliance.

Once again, verbatim Russian talking points:

• Ukraine was not in NATO when Russia invaded in 2014, and it had a neutral status enshrined in its Constitution. Ukraine only removed that status in 2019 after numerous failures of securing peace with Russia through Minsk Agreements, which were all violated by Russia.
• There is no treaty between Russia and NATO that prevents new countries acquiring membership in NATO – or CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) run by Russia, for that matter
• #NATO never “expanded” on its own – it was Eastern European countries applying for NATO membership in response to Russian threats and intimidation, just as #Sweden and #Norway did after 2022

The answers to these questions are important because the attack on the Russian bases has largely destroyed the New Start Treaty

Once again, Russia suspended the New Start Treaty in 2023 and it's quite embarrassing the Morning Star author clearly has no clue about it.

In summary, one of the main British “socialist” media engages in an angry apology of Russia's invasion, literally repeats numerous fakes Russian media have created without even minimal verification, all that in order to eventually blame Ukraine for... defending its territory against Russia's continued attacks.

Morning Star presents here a classic line of some Western left which formally declares a lukewarm condemnation of Russian aggression, but at the same time largely justifies it. And, most importantly, it attempts to create an impression that the attacked country should somehow throttle its own defense effort to avoid “escalation” while they do not require or expect Russia to comply with any limitations in the means they use to achieve their military objectives.

— Paweł Krawczyk https://krvtz.net/ Fediverse @kravietz@agora.echelon.pl