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.
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.
But doesn’t this end up as a rubber band argument excusing all aggression from Russia? If the view is that the Russian navy has full justification to be aggressive to the Danish navy due to the overall aggression of Europe since WWI, how should the Danish navy react? Simply stand down when threatened in home waters and hope that Russia does not apply its justification for further aggression?
As for the idea that Ukraine is to be erased, there’s no actual evidence for this.
Well, as we agreed, there is evidence that Putin does not recognise the Ukrainian nation as separate from the Russian nation. And there is evidence that Putin will go to military extremes to bring ethnic Russians back under Russian statehood. If the current war ends, Russia annexes the four oblasts, and Ukraine is not allowed to join a military alliance guaranteeing their nation state sovereignty, why should the Ukrainians (based on this evidence) expect Putin to not return and bring the rest of Ukraine under Russian rule? Do you think Ukraine should be under Russian rule?
If your claim is to support the working classes, then you should support an end to the war.
I absolutely do. But I think current conditions make it very difficult for Ukraine to surrender, and I’m not sure (based on the above) that such a surrender would bring future peace to the region. I think all workers would be left better off if Russia pursued other avenues than invasion to realise their goals.
The repression against the Donbass is well-documented, but censored in the west to justify support for the fascist regime in Ukraine.
Again, I’m not challenging whether it happened, but if you could bring up a specific factual example we could agree on (ideally in text format), that would be super helpful for the future discussion.
The aggression is coming from Europe, which wishes to re-imperialize Russia like they did in the 90s. That’s the goal of Europe, and so Europe should stand down. Russia has nothing to gain by aggression besides reciprocating and trying to deter Europe from launching yet another war of attempted genocide and colonization like in the 40s.
Secondly, Russia has no reason to want to annex Ukraine. Why would they? The war was provoked by the west installing a Banderite regime that began ethnically cleansing its Russian ethnicities, if the war ends with either a less fascist regime or a rump state for Europe to deal with, both are fine by Russia as the problem is solved.
Russia did explore all avenues to avoid war. The Minsk agreements both failed, and Russia waited 8 years to join the civil war, when Kiev had dramatically accelerated shelling of the Donbass and had amassed a large number of troops to “finish the job,” so to speak. And I did leave sources in the form of a documentary, but if you want text, here’s a bunch compiled by @yogthos@lemmy.ml:
In May 1990 speech Secretary General Manfred Wörner said “The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees.”
This shows 2 things:
As we already knew NATO had told the Soviet Union although that it would not move further East than East Germany
They understood full well that NATO moving East was seen as threatening by USSR given the promise not to do so was a “security guarantee” for them.
The aggression is coming from Europe, which wishes to re-imperialize Russia like they did in the 90s. That’s the goal of Europe, and so Europe should stand down.
Again, doesn’t this become a rubber band excuse for any Russian military move? Or are there things Russia could do that would not be justified?
Secondly, Russia has no reason to want to annex Ukraine. Why would they?
Do you recognize the two facts that Russian leadership considers the Ukrainians as part of the Russian nation, and that their main stated purpose with the conflict is to bring Russians under the Russian state? I’m not saying they for sure would attack further, but do you recognize that such a conclusion could be drawn from these facts?
Russia did explore all avenues to avoid war.
Is this a factual statement or your opinion? I don’t agree with it factually, I think Russian diplomacy is a lot more competent than this.
The Minsk agreements both failed, and Russia waited 8 years to join the civil war
Just to be clear, Russian forces were involved in the annexation of Crimea, as well as the the conflict before 2022. But in 2022 they launched a full scale invasion. So this is not true. See e.g. this report,
In the months since, Putin has adjusted his account of what happened. He initially denied Russian troops were providing security for the referendum, but later acknowledged special forces had been deployed.
Russian soldiers who took part have been given state medals with the citation “For returning Crimea”, which give the starting date of the operation as Feb. 20, before Yanukovich was ousted.
here’s a bunch compiled by @yogthos@lemmy.ml
Thanks! I think the best would be if you point out a particular example with a well-established factual basis which forms a clear example of the kind of violent oppression that would justify an invasion. The list you posted has sources of different quality, dead links and contradictory statements, and I would hate to investigate only bad examples on the list to base my understanding on.
I really want to interrogate my view on this in good faith, so I’d like to steelman your point as much as possible. If I choose a handful of examples from your list, and they are all bad, that would come as a bad faith or straw man argument I think.
You seem to be under the impression that Russia hasn’t already tried diplomacy. Europe doesn’t care about that, they are dominated by finance capital and will use any trick in the book to continue. Russia tried diplomacy over and over again, through Minsk agreements, through other means, and yet the west and Ukraine broke them every time.
As for the annexation of Crimea, this was done with the consent of Crimea, and as such Crimea was spared from the civil war.
As for the links, they are compiled from largely western sources, and as such are going to contain western framing of actual facts, which is why they are contradictory. The facts are what are important, so please read them accordingly. If the links are dead, let me know which ones are and I’ll take them off.
You seem to be under the impression that Russia hasn’t already tried diplomacy.
Not at all, I just think that war fucking sucks for the working class and betrays that the elite has failed at diplomacy - on both sides.
As for the links, they are compiled from largely western sources, and as such are going to contain western framing of actual facts, which is why they are contradictory. The facts are what are important, so please read them accordingly. If the links are dead, let me know which ones are and I’ll take them off.
You’ve posted 60+ links, no way I can go through them all. If the sources are not necessarily factual, and they contradict eachother, the list isn’t really useful for me in terms of what I’ve suggested, i.e. a key example of indisputable fact (your words) that I can use to revisit my view of the ethnic cleansing in East Ukraine.
The sources I can find myself say that there is no evidence of such a thing, but I might very well live in a propaganda bubble - could you help me find a clear example of a documented, indisputable fact in the form of a text that I can start with?
Further, you seem to have missed the questions of the previous posts, so let me restate them. I think they’re important for me to understand your position.
Can you name an example of an aggressive action Russia could take against a European country that would not be justified according to your worldview?
Can you see how the messaging from the Russian leadership could lead to the conclusion that the Ukrainian nation is at fundamental danger of being erased by the Russian state? You don’t have to agree that that is what they intend, but I’m curious if you can see things from both sides (not implying both sides are equally valid)
War sucks, and is a tragedy. That’s why figuring out what the best course of action is is important. How should the war end? How can it end?
As for the links, I gave you one pretty comprehensive one, and a bunch of sub-topics with around 10 links each. If you’re seeking ethnic repressions, that narrows it down to 10-20.
As for Russia taking actions I wouldn’t think are justified, I feel you are moving this into a question of morality, rather than a materialist analysis of the war and where it’s going, how it started, etc. Rather than fish for hypotheticals, it’s important to focus on the concrete. As for the question of Ukrainians feeling as though Ukraine is to be erased, I believe a good amount feel that way, especially due to how Kiev is framing the issue. Even then, Kiev is resorting to kidnapping people off the street and desertions are in the six figures.
War sucks, and is a tragedy. That’s why figuring out what the best course of action is is important. How should the war end? How can it end?
Exactly. Can over should, I think. It’s clear that Ukraine can surrender its territory and possibly install a Russia-friendly government, that should end the current conflict.
But what could or should Russia do to end the current conflict?
As for the links, I gave you one pretty comprehensive one, and a bunch of sub-topics with around 10 links each. If you’re seeking ethnic repressions, that narrows it down to 10-20.
Which one is the comprehensive one, and which 10-20 are the ethnic repression ones? I’m not being facetious here, I just can’t find out what these links are supposed to convey.
Let me be clear, the US are imperialist fucks, the EU is a neoliberal austerity machine, Ukraine has major corruption issues. I agree.
But I’m still really trying to pop whatever propaganda bubble I’m living in. I base my view on reality on multiple independent sources who are able to fully criticise US, NATO, EU, Ukraine and Israel, but are also fully able to criticise Russia, China, Iran and whoever else. I think that’s the only way to get the facts straight. Not saying that these sources are not biased, but by checking primary sources and cross-referencing multiple reports I should be able to get something close to the facts.
But this method doesn’t work with your statements and sources so far. Should I change my method? Or did I misunderstand something? You seem incapable of making or accepting any negative statement about Russia in this context, which to me is a big red flag that maybe it’s you who’s in the propaganda bubble. Sources that disagree with your view seem to be rejected, sources that agree with your view are accepted. Shouldn’t it sort of be the other way around?
But I’m really open to revisiting this view based on sources like those mentioned above, so please help me.
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.
But doesn’t this end up as a rubber band argument excusing all aggression from Russia? If the view is that the Russian navy has full justification to be aggressive to the Danish navy due to the overall aggression of Europe since WWI, how should the Danish navy react? Simply stand down when threatened in home waters and hope that Russia does not apply its justification for further aggression?
Well, as we agreed, there is evidence that Putin does not recognise the Ukrainian nation as separate from the Russian nation. And there is evidence that Putin will go to military extremes to bring ethnic Russians back under Russian statehood. If the current war ends, Russia annexes the four oblasts, and Ukraine is not allowed to join a military alliance guaranteeing their nation state sovereignty, why should the Ukrainians (based on this evidence) expect Putin to not return and bring the rest of Ukraine under Russian rule? Do you think Ukraine should be under Russian rule?
I absolutely do. But I think current conditions make it very difficult for Ukraine to surrender, and I’m not sure (based on the above) that such a surrender would bring future peace to the region. I think all workers would be left better off if Russia pursued other avenues than invasion to realise their goals.
Again, I’m not challenging whether it happened, but if you could bring up a specific factual example we could agree on (ideally in text format), that would be super helpful for the future discussion.
The aggression is coming from Europe, which wishes to re-imperialize Russia like they did in the 90s. That’s the goal of Europe, and so Europe should stand down. Russia has nothing to gain by aggression besides reciprocating and trying to deter Europe from launching yet another war of attempted genocide and colonization like in the 40s.
Secondly, Russia has no reason to want to annex Ukraine. Why would they? The war was provoked by the west installing a Banderite regime that began ethnically cleansing its Russian ethnicities, if the war ends with either a less fascist regime or a rump state for Europe to deal with, both are fine by Russia as the problem is solved.
Russia did explore all avenues to avoid war. The Minsk agreements both failed, and Russia waited 8 years to join the civil war, when Kiev had dramatically accelerated shelling of the Donbass and had amassed a large number of troops to “finish the job,” so to speak. And I did leave sources in the form of a documentary, but if you want text, here’s a bunch compiled by @yogthos@lemmy.ml:
NATO expansion
not one inch east declassified https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16116-document-05-memorandum-conversation-between
Documents reveal Clinton forced Yeltsin into signing NATO-Russia pact https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/documents-reveal-clinton-forced-yeltsin-into-signing-nato-russia-pact/
In May 1990 speech Secretary General Manfred Wörner said “The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees.”
This shows 2 things:
https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm
fascism
maidan coup
war crimes
negotiations
misc sources
Again, doesn’t this become a rubber band excuse for any Russian military move? Or are there things Russia could do that would not be justified?
Do you recognize the two facts that Russian leadership considers the Ukrainians as part of the Russian nation, and that their main stated purpose with the conflict is to bring Russians under the Russian state? I’m not saying they for sure would attack further, but do you recognize that such a conclusion could be drawn from these facts?
Is this a factual statement or your opinion? I don’t agree with it factually, I think Russian diplomacy is a lot more competent than this.
Just to be clear, Russian forces were involved in the annexation of Crimea, as well as the the conflict before 2022. But in 2022 they launched a full scale invasion. So this is not true. See e.g. this report,
Thanks! I think the best would be if you point out a particular example with a well-established factual basis which forms a clear example of the kind of violent oppression that would justify an invasion. The list you posted has sources of different quality, dead links and contradictory statements, and I would hate to investigate only bad examples on the list to base my understanding on.
I really want to interrogate my view on this in good faith, so I’d like to steelman your point as much as possible. If I choose a handful of examples from your list, and they are all bad, that would come as a bad faith or straw man argument I think.
You seem to be under the impression that Russia hasn’t already tried diplomacy. Europe doesn’t care about that, they are dominated by finance capital and will use any trick in the book to continue. Russia tried diplomacy over and over again, through Minsk agreements, through other means, and yet the west and Ukraine broke them every time.
As for the annexation of Crimea, this was done with the consent of Crimea, and as such Crimea was spared from the civil war.
As for the links, they are compiled from largely western sources, and as such are going to contain western framing of actual facts, which is why they are contradictory. The facts are what are important, so please read them accordingly. If the links are dead, let me know which ones are and I’ll take them off.
Not at all, I just think that war fucking sucks for the working class and betrays that the elite has failed at diplomacy - on both sides.
You’ve posted 60+ links, no way I can go through them all. If the sources are not necessarily factual, and they contradict eachother, the list isn’t really useful for me in terms of what I’ve suggested, i.e. a key example of indisputable fact (your words) that I can use to revisit my view of the ethnic cleansing in East Ukraine.
The sources I can find myself say that there is no evidence of such a thing, but I might very well live in a propaganda bubble - could you help me find a clear example of a documented, indisputable fact in the form of a text that I can start with?
Further, you seem to have missed the questions of the previous posts, so let me restate them. I think they’re important for me to understand your position.
War sucks, and is a tragedy. That’s why figuring out what the best course of action is is important. How should the war end? How can it end?
As for the links, I gave you one pretty comprehensive one, and a bunch of sub-topics with around 10 links each. If you’re seeking ethnic repressions, that narrows it down to 10-20.
As for Russia taking actions I wouldn’t think are justified, I feel you are moving this into a question of morality, rather than a materialist analysis of the war and where it’s going, how it started, etc. Rather than fish for hypotheticals, it’s important to focus on the concrete. As for the question of Ukrainians feeling as though Ukraine is to be erased, I believe a good amount feel that way, especially due to how Kiev is framing the issue. Even then, Kiev is resorting to kidnapping people off the street and desertions are in the six figures.
Exactly. Can over should, I think. It’s clear that Ukraine can surrender its territory and possibly install a Russia-friendly government, that should end the current conflict.
But what could or should Russia do to end the current conflict?
Which one is the comprehensive one, and which 10-20 are the ethnic repression ones? I’m not being facetious here, I just can’t find out what these links are supposed to convey.
Let me be clear, the US are imperialist fucks, the EU is a neoliberal austerity machine, Ukraine has major corruption issues. I agree.
But I’m still really trying to pop whatever propaganda bubble I’m living in. I base my view on reality on multiple independent sources who are able to fully criticise US, NATO, EU, Ukraine and Israel, but are also fully able to criticise Russia, China, Iran and whoever else. I think that’s the only way to get the facts straight. Not saying that these sources are not biased, but by checking primary sources and cross-referencing multiple reports I should be able to get something close to the facts.
But this method doesn’t work with your statements and sources so far. Should I change my method? Or did I misunderstand something? You seem incapable of making or accepting any negative statement about Russia in this context, which to me is a big red flag that maybe it’s you who’s in the propaganda bubble. Sources that disagree with your view seem to be rejected, sources that agree with your view are accepted. Shouldn’t it sort of be the other way around?
But I’m really open to revisiting this view based on sources like those mentioned above, so please help me.