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
It’s not semantic. European countries are not democratic. Fascism is on the rise because it preserves bourgeois interests when liberalism decays. The preservation of bourgeois interests is the goal of all existing European states you call “democracies”.
You go on to talk about the “natural decline of democracy”. Even if this democracy did exist, what is your conclusion? It’s natural and we just have to accept cycles of fascism? Democracy is bad and should be replaced to avoid fascism? This idea of “democracy” and “natural decline” leads to incoherent analysis. The word you are looking for is “liberalism” or “bourgeois dictatorship”, and they need no assistance from Russia to produce fascism.
If Europeans being hitlerites is an inevitable consequence of “multipolarism” (aka making their neo-colonial empires harder to maintain), then Europe as a political project should be abolished and reorganized. This is a problem with European liberals, not the existence of “multipolarity”.
It’s semantic when I agree with your general opinion and then we continue to quibble about how to exactly utilize it in a sentence.
If we both agree democracies don’t really exist then it’s self evident and does not require a preface. Especially when my point isn’t dependent on the countries truly being democratic or not.
Liberalisms naturally leads to fascism and should be replaced by socialism… Nothing I said previously conflicts with this.
I never said it required Russia to produce fascism, just that it benefits Russia to speed it along.
Its liberals being reactionary… Meaning they are reacting to multipolarism.
I think these democracies do not exist (democracy is impossible in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which is necessarily a class made up of a minority of citizens). Democracy is real. These just aren’t democracies. That’s a big, important point, not a semantic difference.
Mostly I don’t have big problems with the rest of your reply. However, that’s not what “reactionary” means. It doesn’t refer to reacting to something in general, it refers to being antirevolutionary (working for the preservation of the current order - in fact usually for a return to a previous order, often made up - in reaction to revolutionary change). I agree that this can be applied to European liberals in this case, though.
My main issue is that I think the amount of assistance Russia provides the European far right is exaggerated. I think Russia could completely ignore them and it would probably not significantly impact their progression.