https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine | Archived
At the first meeting, the Russians presented a set of harsh conditions, effectively demanding Ukraine’s capitulation. This was a nonstarter. But as Moscow’s position on the battlefield continued to deteriorate, its positions at the negotiating table became less demanding. So on March 3 and March 7, the parties held a second and third round of talks […]
Regarding territorial issues, parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Donbass would remain under Russian control
Moscow ostensibly wanted Kiev to slash the size of its army to 85,000 people, while Ukraine insisted on retaining a strength of 250,000.
Edit: Replaced “reporter” with “politician” in the post title
Edit2: Changed title from “microphone cut” to “segment cut short” in the title
I mean, they’re the same thing. I just think the modern equivalent tend to present themselves as socialist who happen to be nationalist rather than the neo Nazi they really are.
The Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance is a pretty good example… Or stačilo in in the Czech Republic.
Any time I mention a democracy I have to make a long preface? I never said if it was a good thing or a bad thing, just that supporting nationalist political parties was a way to disrupt the democratic countries.
And no I am not a neolib… Personally I think promoting multipolarism is a mixed bag. Over all it may bring some geopolitical stability but it does have its downsides, and that often going to be felt hardest by at risk groups.
No they’re not. You’re emphasising the socialist where everyone that recognises that they are not socialist absolutely does not use it, ever. You’re literally using the nazi’s own propaganda because you view it as useful to your anticommunist agenda.
No not really. This is a socialist that wants socialism but has traditional social beliefs. If you think this is nazism then literally every liberal party pre-1943 was also a nazi.
Are these views backwards social views? Yes absolutely. Are they advocating for fucking nazism? Or anything that would remotely look like a fascist organisational structure of government? Fucking no. They’re absolutely not.
You have confused fascism with identity politics. You’ve got it into your head that fascists all hold right wing social views and everyone else is not a fascist.
Fidel Castro and Che Guevara at the time of their revolution are both “national socialists” under this analysis. It’s just flat out wrong. These are real socialists who hold outdated social views on the family, it’s absolutely not the same thing.
National socialism is a dog whistle for fascist… Pretty much anyone claiming to want socialism for their nation independent from globalized socialism ends up being a Nazi.
Traditional beliefs being hate mongering immigrants? The Nazi professed to want socialism for “real” Germans… That’s just not how socialism works. You can’t sustain socialism independently from a greater world wide movement.
Guess what…? The Nazi didn’t run for office promising an. organizational structure of government.
Can you give me an example of a fascist nation that didn’t hold right winged social views?
Ahh yes, both of those people famously hated immigrants.
I don’t think you’ve really listened to me.
No but playing into working people’s concerns about migrant workers driving down salaries and taking jobs? Yes. Exactly the same shit happens among parts of the left in the UK. Galloway has done exactly that. Nazi? No. Bit of a dickhead? Yes.
I’m sorry but this is just wrong. The fascist organisation structure is quite specific and fascists absolutely did talk about it loudly during their rise. What the fuck do you think the fasces even represents? Fascists aren’t hiding their goal of restructuring the very structure of government.
Can you give me an example of a socialist nation that has not held these traditional social views? The only one that does not is Cuba, and that is only a recent development.
There are no socialist countries with open borders that simply welcome everyone with open arms. In fact, socialist countries all have pretty strict borders, significantly more strict than the liberal countries of the EU.
You are mis-analysing these socialists and it is a mistake to call them nazis. They have backwards views because they’re old fucks and out of touch, but they are absolutely left wing. If you dug up Mao or Deng they would probably explicitly agree with them, because they’d be old fucks today too, that wouldn’t make them less communist though and it certainly wouldn’t make them nazis. It would just make them old and out of touch with developing social issues.
Ditto…
And this is different from the Nazi with Jews how exactly?
I mean that’s just ahistorical… The center and right party did not cooperate with the Nazi party thinking they were going to be putting themselves out of power. The riechstag fire wouldn’t have been necessary if this was the case.
I think the Soviet union and especially West Germany were culturally progressive for the time.
So how about that fascist socially progressive fascist nation?
You are conflating open borders with legal immigration.
Lol, sure… The men who committed to war for their Korean neighbors, totally would be nationalistic isolationist who hates immigrants.
No I have. As has everyone else on hexbear that totally disagrees with you.
Migrating to a country is a choice mate. If you don’t understand how migration is a choice and being a fucking jew is not a choice we’ve got a fundamental problem with your ability to understand what immutable characteristics are.
Migrants are not an ethnicity or religion. Racism does get tangled up in anti-migrant bullshit, absolutely. But the two are quite different things. Economic anxieties over migration are not the same thing as believing in the fucking master race, what is so hard for you to fucking understand about this?
To understand one from another you need to look more closely at primary motivations for a person’s position. Sometimes the 10% racist bullshit someone spews about migrants can mislead you into saying “this person is a fascist” when 90% of their motivation is not racism at all and the racist crap is just an offshoot of the other crap that has nothing to do with nazism.
No it isn’t.
Why the fuck are you demanding I give you the name of something I never claimed to exist. Stop hitting me with your strawman dipshittery.
Both had closed borders though, why are you not calling them fascists for their policy towards migrant work? Also you mean EAST Germany, and furthermore East Germany’s socially progressive elements were driven by the goal of undermining western intelligence agencies that were for example blackmailing gay people into counter-revolution and spying. You can’t blackmail people if you simply change the social view of gay people and thus the country undertook a huge campaign to remove the stigma and make it acceptable. Not out of the goodness of their hearts but driven by material conditions.
What the fuck do you think legal immigration is if not a person passing through a border that is open? Illegal immigration = passing into a country that has closed its borders to you. Legal migration = passing into a country that has opened its borders to you.
China did not have an open border policy for migrant workers with the DPRK before or after the war. China’s policy both then and now is forcible repatriation back to their home country. Your understanding of socialists both historic and current is idealistic and utopian. They don’t have these policies, and did not back then, because they would be very bad policies that would be harmful to their own workers.
I actually hate you for forcing me to defend this position. Because I don’t agree with these people at all and I’ve come to blows with Galloway here in the UK more than once. But your labelling of these people as nazis is just completely absurd and unless you wrap your head around their position properly you will never understand the european left correctly, because you’ve incorrectly decided more than half of the european left are nazis.