People can certainly say things, but this is all analysis and opinion based on underling facts. Do you disagree with what I have said? Do you agree with the factual basis, but not my analysis?
Further, all states are instruments of class authority by which the ruling classes cement themselves, so to speak of one in particular as an “authoritarian regime,” it implies European countries are not also “authoritarian regimes” dominated by capitalists. The major difference is that Russia is dominated by the Russian nationalist bourgeoisie, while European countries (especially Germany, France, and the UK, but all are complicit and benefit from it to different degrees) are dominated by finance capital and the big imperialists.
Do you disagree with what I have said? Do you agree with the factual basis, but not my analysis?
It’s a little unclear to me. For example, you so far appear to have denied the fact that Russia is engaged in a hybrid warfare campaign against Europe. Do we agree that this is a true statement?
Another fact I’d like to agree on is that Russia invaded Ukraine, attacked it’s capital and started a war has led to the meaningless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of common working class people who could have otherwise contributed to the fight for global justice.
Do you agree that these are factual statements? Then we can discuss analysis.
If not, what type of source could change your mind?
What is a “hybrid warfare campaign against Europe?” Russia is not at war with Europe, except through Ukraine, which NATO is supplying heavily. This sounds like a divergence in analysis, rather than facts.
As for Russia starting the war, no, the West did in 2014 when they backed the Banderite coup. The civil war has been going on since then, and Russia joined in 2022. The war was avoidable if the west had not provoked it, and Ukraine would be better off had the west not supported the coup.
What is a “hybrid warfare campaign against Europe?”
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of hybrid warfare? Or do you not recognize its validity as a descriptor?
In any case, let’s get even more basic and factual. Here is an example, again from Denmark, of hostile behavior from Russia. Do you agree that these events have taken place?
If we extend the war back to 2014, do you agree that after Russia chose to join the war in 2022, which had until then claimed on the order of 15.000 innocent working class lives, the war escalated to immense scales of violence, with on the order of a million working class casualties?
We don’t need to agree on the exact numbers, I just want to see if we agree more or less on these facts.
If we are being honest, western Europe has been waging hybrid warfare (and occasionally hot warfare) against Russia since World War I. Russia has been defensive since it pulled out of World War I, and occasionally has helped anti-colonial wars of resistance since then. As for Ukrainian national identity, it is very much real, but at the same time it isn’t homogenous across all of Ukraine, hence why the more Russian Donbass area ran into conflict with west Ukraine.
The war has killed many people, yes, and my question to return to you is if you believe Kiev has the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region because fewer people would die that way.
If we are being honest, western Europe has been waging hybrid warfare (and occasionally hot warfare) against Russia since World War I.
This sounds more like analysis than fact - does that mean you acknowledge the factuality of the report I linked? Yes or no?
As for Ukrainian national identity, it is very much real, but at the same time it isn’t homogenous
Again, that’s your view, but the fact is that Vladimir Putin has fundamentally challenged the concept of Ukrainian nationality. Is this true, yes or no?
The war has killed many people, yes
Good, here at least we can agree on a fact.
Do you believe Kiev has the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region because fewer people would die that way.
I reject the dichotomy that either Russia invaded, or Donbass was ethnically cleansed. This is not a fact, this is speculation.
As you mention, nations are rarely homogeneous, but the resulting conflicts can be handled many different ways that doesn’t murder a million working class people. See for example the modern solution to the German-Danish border.
But to be clear, no, I don’t believe anyone has to right to ethnically cleanse anywhere, and I don’t believe anyone has the right to invade another country leading to devastating war. Not Ukraine, not Russia, not America, not Israel, not anyone. I assume you agree?
I’m not sure if everything in the article you linked is true or not. I believe some of it may be, and I believe it’s erasing European aggression against Russia, which we know is ongoing. Regarding Putin challenging Ukrainian identity, sure. However, the question of ethnic cleansing isn’t about a future possibility, it was what was already happening before Russia got involved. Kiev committed repressions against ethnic Russians, and the Donbass region is highly Russian.
It sounds like you would have rather the ethnic cleansing continue, and that you don’t believe Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to ask neighboring states for support.
I think this makes it hard for the Ukrainians to stop fighting. I think the statements of Putin makes many suspect that surrender in this war could lead to the erasure of the Ukrainian nation. Does that make sense to you, or is that nonsense?
It sounds like you would have rather the ethnic cleansing continue, and that you don’t believe Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to ask neighboring states for support.
Not at all. Sorry I gave you that impression. My fight is that of the working class everywhere to be free of oppression and war. I simply reject that asking for support must necessarily lead to a large scale invasion and the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
But if you disagree, and that disagreement is not based on counterfactual speculation, which factual events of ethnic cleansing would you point to as justifying this scale of death and destruction? I’m not saying there wasn’t ethnic cleansing, but I think it’s easier for me to reconsider my view if I know exactly what you are referring to.
Russia is reciprocating Europe’s aggression and hostility that has been going on for over a century. Europe is not at threat by Russia unless they make Russia a threat.
As for the idea that Ukraine is to be erased, there’s no actual evidence for this. Russia has been consistent with their aims to annex the 4 oblasts, and for NATO neutrality. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want the world’s largest imperialist military alliance to get off of your doorstep.
People can certainly say things, but this is all analysis and opinion based on underling facts. Do you disagree with what I have said? Do you agree with the factual basis, but not my analysis?
Further, all states are instruments of class authority by which the ruling classes cement themselves, so to speak of one in particular as an “authoritarian regime,” it implies European countries are not also “authoritarian regimes” dominated by capitalists. The major difference is that Russia is dominated by the Russian nationalist bourgeoisie, while European countries (especially Germany, France, and the UK, but all are complicit and benefit from it to different degrees) are dominated by finance capital and the big imperialists.
It’s a little unclear to me. For example, you so far appear to have denied the fact that Russia is engaged in a hybrid warfare campaign against Europe. Do we agree that this is a true statement?
Another fact I’d like to agree on is that Russia invaded Ukraine, attacked it’s capital and started a war has led to the meaningless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of common working class people who could have otherwise contributed to the fight for global justice.
Do you agree that these are factual statements? Then we can discuss analysis.
If not, what type of source could change your mind?
What is a “hybrid warfare campaign against Europe?” Russia is not at war with Europe, except through Ukraine, which NATO is supplying heavily. This sounds like a divergence in analysis, rather than facts.
As for Russia starting the war, no, the West did in 2014 when they backed the Banderite coup. The civil war has been going on since then, and Russia joined in 2022. The war was avoidable if the west had not provoked it, and Ukraine would be better off had the west not supported the coup.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of hybrid warfare? Or do you not recognize its validity as a descriptor?
In any case, let’s get even more basic and factual. Here is an example, again from Denmark, of hostile behavior from Russia. Do you agree that these events have taken place?
Do you agree that Vladimir Putin challenges the very existence of a Ukrainian nation?
If we extend the war back to 2014, do you agree that after Russia chose to join the war in 2022, which had until then claimed on the order of 15.000 innocent working class lives, the war escalated to immense scales of violence, with on the order of a million working class casualties?
We don’t need to agree on the exact numbers, I just want to see if we agree more or less on these facts.
If we are being honest, western Europe has been waging hybrid warfare (and occasionally hot warfare) against Russia since World War I. Russia has been defensive since it pulled out of World War I, and occasionally has helped anti-colonial wars of resistance since then. As for Ukrainian national identity, it is very much real, but at the same time it isn’t homogenous across all of Ukraine, hence why the more Russian Donbass area ran into conflict with west Ukraine.
The war has killed many people, yes, and my question to return to you is if you believe Kiev has the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region because fewer people would die that way.
This sounds more like analysis than fact - does that mean you acknowledge the factuality of the report I linked? Yes or no?
Again, that’s your view, but the fact is that Vladimir Putin has fundamentally challenged the concept of Ukrainian nationality. Is this true, yes or no?
Good, here at least we can agree on a fact.
I reject the dichotomy that either Russia invaded, or Donbass was ethnically cleansed. This is not a fact, this is speculation.
As you mention, nations are rarely homogeneous, but the resulting conflicts can be handled many different ways that doesn’t murder a million working class people. See for example the modern solution to the German-Danish border.
But to be clear, no, I don’t believe anyone has to right to ethnically cleanse anywhere, and I don’t believe anyone has the right to invade another country leading to devastating war. Not Ukraine, not Russia, not America, not Israel, not anyone. I assume you agree?
I’m not sure if everything in the article you linked is true or not. I believe some of it may be, and I believe it’s erasing European aggression against Russia, which we know is ongoing. Regarding Putin challenging Ukrainian identity, sure. However, the question of ethnic cleansing isn’t about a future possibility, it was what was already happening before Russia got involved. Kiev committed repressions against ethnic Russians, and the Donbass region is highly Russian.
It sounds like you would have rather the ethnic cleansing continue, and that you don’t believe Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to ask neighboring states for support.
Fair. But if some of it is, it goes at least some way towards explaining why Europe feels threatened by Russia.
So is Europe in a hybrid war with Russia? Or is the aggressive naval behaviour described actually defensive without reflecting a state of conflict?
I think this makes it hard for the Ukrainians to stop fighting. I think the statements of Putin makes many suspect that surrender in this war could lead to the erasure of the Ukrainian nation. Does that make sense to you, or is that nonsense?
Not at all. Sorry I gave you that impression. My fight is that of the working class everywhere to be free of oppression and war. I simply reject that asking for support must necessarily lead to a large scale invasion and the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
But if you disagree, and that disagreement is not based on counterfactual speculation, which factual events of ethnic cleansing would you point to as justifying this scale of death and destruction? I’m not saying there wasn’t ethnic cleansing, but I think it’s easier for me to reconsider my view if I know exactly what you are referring to.
Russia is reciprocating Europe’s aggression and hostility that has been going on for over a century. Europe is not at threat by Russia unless they make Russia a threat.
As for the idea that Ukraine is to be erased, there’s no actual evidence for this. Russia has been consistent with their aims to annex the 4 oblasts, and for NATO neutrality. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want the world’s largest imperialist military alliance to get off of your doorstep.
If your claim is to support the working classes, then you should support an end to the war. If NATO had not decided to provoke the war, and harvest Kiev for money and raw materials, then this war never would have happened. If the USSR had not dissolved, then this war never would have happened. The repression against the Donbass is well-documented, but censored in the west to justify support for the fascist regime in Ukraine.