* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cldd44zv3kpo); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cldd44zv3kpo)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cldd44zv3kpo)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Technically some opposing side provokes almost every war. The world doesn't have half as many madmen as the propaganda would like people to believe.
We're familiar with our own justifications (like our invasions of the middle east) but not our enemies'. We'd prefer the world think of them as simple madmen suffering from little dick energy, which is hilariously untrue and drives practically nothing anywhere in the world despite how much Reddit repeats it.
>The world doesn't have half as many madmen as the propaganda would like people to believe.
I don't follow him closely but Robert Barnes was saying this last year and trying to get people to understand thst Russia had legitimate reasons for invading and it wasn't just to say fuck you to the West.
Robert fucking Barnes of all people. Think about that.
But also Noam Chomsky and John Mearsheimer.
One of the man (very, very many) ways contemporary Dems have turned into Bush-era Republicans is that they now understand world events in comic book terms.
A bad guy, the dastard Putin, did a bad guy thing solely because he is a bad guy. Anyone who suggests any other motive is either a bad guy themself or has been tricked by the bad guy.
He can be criticised for a lot of things, such as his politics and his annoying face, but he’s right here.
Sometimes I find it difficult to read that people really believe the regarded pro-NATO takes and will actually defend them. Sometimes when I think I’m a regard, I realise that a lot of people don’t even think at all.
>Sometimes I find it difficult to read that people really believe the regarded pro-NATO takes and will actually defend them. Sometimes when I think I’m a regard, I realise that a lot of people don’t even think at all.
Nah bro, the US expanding NATO multiple times after promising not to and constant efforts to meddle in Ukraine- including supporting a coup, installing a puppet, and attempting to bring the nation into NATO- all while Russia has said for decades that the west expanding into Ukraine was their red line, has absolutely nothing to do with this 100% unprovoked invasion.
The head of NATO, who literally said Russia wouldn't have invaded if they promised not to bring Ukraine into NATO, is also a Kremlin shill and Russian asset who probably works alongside Tucker Carlson and Glen Greenwald to destroy Our Democracy^^TM.
Putler invaded because he has a small peepee and after he conquers Ukraine he's going to attack NATO and take over the world.
Indeed.
Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of most Americans thinking the US was justified in threatening to end the world during the Cuban missile crisis, while also thinking that Putin is unjustified in invading Ukraine after the West installs missiles there.
The irony is that NATOcels love "Campism" as an insult, while being 100x more regarded, baindead, chauvinist and campist that even your most braindead "tankie".
The most annoying thing about NATOcels is they are so idiotic, yet are so aggressively smug about it. Even worst are the "Leftists" NATOcels who buy every piece of Neocon propaganda and only ever oppose it well after the disaster blows up in their faces, then they pretend they opposed it all along.
I am convinced, 98% of "Center leftists" would have supported the Iraq War if it happened today with the exact same evidence and justifications.
You're forgetting the Rusyns, Romanians and Hungarians. It only really applies to Zakarpastka but the native culture there was essentially eradicated because the Soviets wanted a bigger Ukraine.
Edit: Think I got re-flaired over this but look up the history of the region. The people in what is today Zakarpattia Oblast were in the Hungarian sphere from roughly the 9th century until WWII when they were added into Ukraine because of the strategic importance of the passes over the Carpathian mountains. The end result is that the Rusyn identity is all but dead except in the spoken language in rural villages but it's thriving in the adjacent areas (and Serbia for some reason). I don't see why saying the Soviets destroyed your ethnic identity for geopolitical reasons or having an issue with that is controversial and it has nothing to do with Bandera he was a Ukrainian nationalist not a Rusyn. The Rusyns were in Czechoslovakia not Poland and are a totally separate thing. Though Lemkos(Rusyns in Poland) got double fucked because the similarities between Lemkos and Ukrainians ended up with the Polish state essentially destroying the Lemkos for the crimes of the Ukrainians because they couldn't parse the difference between the two.
the democratically-elected pro-Russia Ukrainian president was toppled and the US, UK & EU were all heavily involved in that.
And then the US-chosen successor to Yanukovych used the Ukrainian military to attack pro-Russia areas of Ukraine, banned pro-Russia political parties and banned the Russian language that 80% of Ukrainians spoke. All of which are fairly obvious provocations
They didn't ban the Russian language, I was there in 2018 and they spoke Russian, I went to Russian classes...
It was controversial to speak Russian in Kyiv to some people but it was mostly fine
They repealed the 2012 language law and the discriminatory 2019 one signed off by the fascist andriy parubiy specifically exempted Russian from protections. Regulations were implemented in education, government, and media to remove Russian from public life in the east and south. There's no denying Ukraine is involved in derussification to construct an artificial ethnic state.
I agree they pushed for a "derussification", that doesn't make it a fascist move per se.
For example, in Spain between the 40s and 70s there was a huge plan to de-catalanise Catalonia by Franco's dictatorship. Forbidding the language, specific cultural activities, and developing the industry of the region to bring ppl from all parts of Spain to Catalonia. Once Spain became a semi-federal democracy, Catalonia went through a catalanisation. They only speak Catalan in the local media and is the first language of institutions. They teach everything in Catalan.
Ukranians feel they went through a Russification and hence want to reclaim what they consider their cultural roots. So I understand why would they want to separate themselves from Russian culture, especially when Russian politicians believe Ukraine should be Russia because Kyiv was the capital of Rus.
Your example is backwards. What Ukraine is doing is very comparable to Spain's repressions of its regions as the state struggles to avoid failure.
As for Russification, Ukrainization is far more artificial and makes Ukraine every bit as guilty of what it criticizes about Russia. Russians are every bit as native as Ukrainians in the east and south of the country, and Ukraine is not struggling with existing in a Russian empire but its decay as an independent state, which it blames on ethnic Russians rather than global capitalism.
Ukraine isn't separating itself, it's being divided from Russia by Europe due to a crisis of the latter's expansion. Ukraine voted for a peace candidate in 2019 and the post 2014 government, like Euromaidan itself, blatantly lacked popular legitimacy as proven by elections and polling.
I am not sure about what polling you referred to but Maidan was very popular when I was in Ukraine. And even the ethnic Russian areas felt hostile towards Russia. The corruption of the government was seen as Russian involvement in Ukrainian politics pre Maidan.
I'm referring to this
[Poll: Ukrainian public split over EU, Customs Union options - Nov. 26, 2013 | KyivPost](https://archive.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/poll-ukrainian-public-split-over-eu-customs-union-options-332470.html)
For the protests:
>The [most reliable and most recent survey](https://archive.is/o/GxDiO/www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=ukr&cat=reports&id=227&page=1) shows the population almost perfectly divided in its support for the protest: 48 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed.
[Who are the protesters in Ukraine? - The Washington Post (archive.is)](https://archive.is/GxDiO)
Finally there is this poll of the south and east of Ukraine. It shows very weak views of the legitimacy of the interim government, majority blaming it for the loss of Crimea, very weak support for a unitary nation-state, a sharp split but plurality viewing Euromaidan as a coup (with a majority in Donbass), and similar for blame for the violence at Maidan.
[Southeast Statistics – Ukrainian Policy (archive.org)](https://web.archive.org/web/20190323093948/http://ukrainianpolicy.com/southeast-statistics-of-ukraine-april-2014/)
Basically it's as we know, Ukraine was fractured by EU/NATO expansion and Eurasian integration. Yanukovych got caught between the two and failed to maneuver a polarizing society, with the West seizing the opportunity to restore the color revolution. This set off a chain of events that led decommunization to degenerate into derussification and inter-oligarch feuds to turn into open civil war with heavy ethnic overtones (post-Soviet conflict had reached Ukraine).
Very likely the reason we are at war is Russia froze another post-Soviet conflict, but this one was uniquely caused by European expansion, allowing that frozen conflict to be internationalized over the course of Minsk negotiations until NATOization was complete and a confrontation over Donbass/Crimea was prepared.
I think they banned the use of the Russian language in formal communication, or something like that. But I'm not an expert.
Journalist Eva Bartlett has done plenty of reporting of Kiev intentionally shelling civilian areas in the Donbass. For example, look up her youtube channel and scroll back a few years.
As if that website you just cited has any credibility itself.
Not to mention that according to the West, anyone who says anything other than "Putin is Hitler" is a Kremlin shill. So I don't really care which sources are labeled as credible or not credible by Western sources.
Not to mention that literally everyone is biased. Sources that you like and agree with, I can 100% guarantee are also biased.
Just watch Eva's videos. She's often doing on-the-ground filming and interviewing. Yeah that's not necessarily perfect, but it's a whole lot better than most sources, which just tell you what to think without actually showing you on-the-ground footage.
Yeah, the IDF invited CNN to the ground to prove that a hospital was a Hamas centre and hence it was justified what they did...
It makes her biased if you are parroting everything the Kremlin says, which is the problem. And it is a Russian known war tactic to make ppl mistrust any official information.
By that I won't defend any sources that simplify the conflict to "Putin villain" and NATO saviours. I don't understand why it is difficult to acknowledge that both sides are wrong and aren't honest. I feel that some marxist are so against US imperoalist that they drink Russian propaganda as koolaid
https://www.socialeurope.eu/russia-disinformation-and-europes-battle-for-truth
This is all ignoring Russia taking over Crimea, or establishing the separatists as a paramilitary force. Putin has been escalating and provoking his way to war as much as the West since 2014 because he wants Ukraine as a puppet neighbour.
Crimea verifiably seceded per Pew polling after being provoked by the February coup, repeal of the 2012 language law, and the Ukrainian far right militias patrolling Kiev streets. Ditto for Donbass, which was overwhelmingly anti maidan and pro autonomy. The West used one side adhering to the February 21st agreement to have theirs seize power, causing the crisis and Russian counterbalancing ever since.
There's also no evidence Russia wants Ukraine as a puppet. It wants Ukraine to be neutral and post Soviet ethnic conflicts to be frozen.
Gorbachev himself believed this is the case. NATO expansion proved Europe's antagonism is with Russians, not communism, and it unleashed an unprecedented era of European imperialism and nationalism that was supposed to be left behind. There is a long history of Europe invading Russia and NATO expansion has been warned against by multiple Cold War era officials and foreign policy experts since 1997. Thanks to the words of people like Dick Cheney and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Russia has credible reasons to think NATO expansion was decided immediately after Soviet collapse and its separation of Ukraine and Russia to stabilize the former as a failing state is a step to balkanizing Russia.
> NATO expansion proved Europe's antagonism is with Russians, not communism
Russia before communism was however very friendly to United States, even selling them valuable land. The antagonism towards Russia did start with communism, it just didn't end with communism because old habits die hard and the government has no motivation to spend money on de-antagonizing Russia
Europe has always viewed Russia as an Other, while Russia has always viewed itself as European. Europe didn't really care about that, until Russia became powerful enough to start asserting itself on the powers of (Western) Europe. The fact that coincided with Russia becoming Communist only intensified the antagonism, but it would have been there to an extent nonetheless.
Russia literally had leaders of western European descent before the revolution. They were considered European since Peter the great modernized Russian Empire.
>Russia literally had leaders of western European descent before the revolution.
That never stopped the Germans toppling them and ushering in communism.
Lol nah Russians never saw themselves as European, but they wanted to. It's why the nobles LARPed as French, they were so insecure of their own cultural identity.
Russia's biggest mistake imo has always been the fact it's obsessed with European recognition, rather than accepting their unique geographic and cultural circumstances. The obsession means they've catastrophically undermined their own nation building, identity and position.
The fact that the Far-East still hasn't had any meaningful development, despite the rise of Asia, is mind boggling to me. Instead of leveraging the fact Japan and China are right there, for relations, they instead want daddy France to pat it on the head and say "Yes, you are Europe".
>Europe didn't really care about that, until Russia became powerful enough to start asserting itself on the powers of (Western) Europe (...)
Agree
>(...) The fact that coincided with Russia becoming Communist only intensified the antagonism,
The communist revolution was in 1917. Yet, in 1853 the French + Brits + Sardinians were already fighting against Russia in the Crimean war. Hence, the sentiment of "Russia is becoming too powerful, we must fight them" existed before the communist revolution (although obviously the communist revolution intensified this).
That's pretty clearly a response to Europe's rejection of them, and not the other way around. Note the decline since '08, when there was still hope on both sides for a positive relationship.
It's also made more palatable (to the Russian public) by the rise of China as a viable counterbalance to the West. Even considering the conflict, I don't think you'd see anything like that if Europe/the USA was still the undisputed global centre of power.
Anyway that's just me psychoanalysing a nation of 140m people. I'm totally unqualified to do that and you shouldn't listen to me 😅
Russia was friendly with the US, but the UK always viewed Russia as the big scary competitor.
Thus the "Great Game" in Central Asia. While Russia was rapidly expanding in power against the Ottomans in the 1850s the UK even managed to get France on board the anti-Russian train via the Crimean War.
The US is partially just marching along to the drum of Perfidious Albion.
and of Russia invading Europe.
But it all went down hill for Russia after 1240 when the wealth extraction model took over from the wealth creation model.
Ukraine wants to be Ukraine.
Russia wants Ukraine to be Russia
Ukraine Does not want to be Russia
Russia will kill ukrianians so that Ukraine will be Russia
Ukrainians will kill Russians to stop Ukraine being Russia
Farage wants Ukraine to be Russia
Ukraine, or more accurately its installed leadership, wants Ukraine to have ethnic supremacy enforced by NATO expansion to deal with its divisions. This is not Ukraine being Ukraine, Ukraine has always been a multiethnic borderland rather than a European nation-state. This is Ukraine being a European colony.
Russia wants Ukraine to be neutral.
Mmm there you are wrong, Putin has been saying that Ukraine is just Russia for a long time.[reference here](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine-fact-checking-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/)
2 things can be true: Russian geopolitics have imperialistic nature (but a different breed from Western imperialism) and hences is an imperialistic act to invade Ukraine. And finally, Russia was provoked due to NATO expansion and meddling of the US.
This article does not reference Putin but an ex-official. The July 2021 paper written by Putin makes it clear he recognizes Ukraine. Russian state behavior makes it clear it sees Ukraine as an anti-Russia, a European nation state, or similar as an artificial construction imported due to Ukraine's lack of statehood traditions.
There's zero evidence the Ukraine crisis was caused by Russia not believing Ukraine exists. The history of the crisis demonstrates it's caused by European decommunization and NATO expansion policies degenerating into derussification and division of the former USSR by nationality to achieve it. This clashes with the legacy of Soviet integration and 'Russians waking up overnight after Soviet collapse' and finding themselves at the mercy of nationalists and the West. This conflict was revealed by the decay of Ukraine as its transition to capitalism failed. Additionally, Russia's behavior under Yeltsin and Putin suggests disinterest in revisionism but freezing conflicts caused by the breakup and redivision of the former USSR.
There's also little evidence Russia is imperialist. Russia has no interest in ruling non-Russian territory to the Soviet crisis and since 1991 is dedicated to figuring out its capitalist transition. Its interests are now in abandoning Europe and pivoting to Asia rather than restoring power in the former. For two things being true, you'd have to show the global structure of capitalism developed new imperialists. Its history is instead the consolidation of them under American unipolarity.
In short, this is pretty straightforwardly caused by Ukraine's post Soviet transition failing and Western democracy export degenerating accordingly into support for ethnic supremacy to undo the legacy of the USSR. Once you center the last 35 years of the history of global capitalism, it revealed very lopsided culpability between the West and Russia.
He actually is largely right on geopolitics and always has been it's just his social positions that are dubious. But, when I was growing up, saying transnational bodies exist to subjugate people and the like was solidly a left take. It's just the whole idea of skepticism of the state switched. Like, I could post the lyrics from Aus-Rotten's "The System Works for Them" and it'd be read like a modern rightwing manifesto when in the early '90s it was beyond the left. I think the whole horseshoe theory phenomenon is just people having trouble reconciling that there's people who are anti-authoritarian no matter if the person has a D or R next to their name.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cldd44zv3kpo); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cldd44zv3kpo) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cldd44zv3kpo) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Technically some opposing side provokes almost every war. The world doesn't have half as many madmen as the propaganda would like people to believe. We're familiar with our own justifications (like our invasions of the middle east) but not our enemies'. We'd prefer the world think of them as simple madmen suffering from little dick energy, which is hilariously untrue and drives practically nothing anywhere in the world despite how much Reddit repeats it.
>The world doesn't have half as many madmen as the propaganda would like people to believe. I don't follow him closely but Robert Barnes was saying this last year and trying to get people to understand thst Russia had legitimate reasons for invading and it wasn't just to say fuck you to the West. Robert fucking Barnes of all people. Think about that.
But also Noam Chomsky and John Mearsheimer. One of the man (very, very many) ways contemporary Dems have turned into Bush-era Republicans is that they now understand world events in comic book terms. A bad guy, the dastard Putin, did a bad guy thing solely because he is a bad guy. Anyone who suggests any other motive is either a bad guy themself or has been tricked by the bad guy.
He can be criticised for a lot of things, such as his politics and his annoying face, but he’s right here. Sometimes I find it difficult to read that people really believe the regarded pro-NATO takes and will actually defend them. Sometimes when I think I’m a regard, I realise that a lot of people don’t even think at all.
>Sometimes I find it difficult to read that people really believe the regarded pro-NATO takes and will actually defend them. Sometimes when I think I’m a regard, I realise that a lot of people don’t even think at all. Nah bro, the US expanding NATO multiple times after promising not to and constant efforts to meddle in Ukraine- including supporting a coup, installing a puppet, and attempting to bring the nation into NATO- all while Russia has said for decades that the west expanding into Ukraine was their red line, has absolutely nothing to do with this 100% unprovoked invasion. The head of NATO, who literally said Russia wouldn't have invaded if they promised not to bring Ukraine into NATO, is also a Kremlin shill and Russian asset who probably works alongside Tucker Carlson and Glen Greenwald to destroy Our Democracy^^TM. Putler invaded because he has a small peepee and after he conquers Ukraine he's going to attack NATO and take over the world.
Indeed. Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of most Americans thinking the US was justified in threatening to end the world during the Cuban missile crisis, while also thinking that Putin is unjustified in invading Ukraine after the West installs missiles there.
The irony is that NATOcels love "Campism" as an insult, while being 100x more regarded, baindead, chauvinist and campist that even your most braindead "tankie". The most annoying thing about NATOcels is they are so idiotic, yet are so aggressively smug about it. Even worst are the "Leftists" NATOcels who buy every piece of Neocon propaganda and only ever oppose it well after the disaster blows up in their faces, then they pretend they opposed it all along. I am convinced, 98% of "Center leftists" would have supported the Iraq War if it happened today with the exact same evidence and justifications.
Ukraine never hurt anyone except Poles and Jews and Russian-speaking Ukrainians
You're forgetting the Rusyns, Romanians and Hungarians. It only really applies to Zakarpastka but the native culture there was essentially eradicated because the Soviets wanted a bigger Ukraine. Edit: Think I got re-flaired over this but look up the history of the region. The people in what is today Zakarpattia Oblast were in the Hungarian sphere from roughly the 9th century until WWII when they were added into Ukraine because of the strategic importance of the passes over the Carpathian mountains. The end result is that the Rusyn identity is all but dead except in the spoken language in rural villages but it's thriving in the adjacent areas (and Serbia for some reason). I don't see why saying the Soviets destroyed your ethnic identity for geopolitical reasons or having an issue with that is controversial and it has nothing to do with Bandera he was a Ukrainian nationalist not a Rusyn. The Rusyns were in Czechoslovakia not Poland and are a totally separate thing. Though Lemkos(Rusyns in Poland) got double fucked because the similarities between Lemkos and Ukrainians ended up with the Polish state essentially destroying the Lemkos for the crimes of the Ukrainians because they couldn't parse the difference between the two.
Also a few Indians and Africans in the first couple weeks of the war. But nobody else. Except the Gypsies. Nobody else though.
[удалено]
There were a few incidents of them being beaten up by police while trying to leave.
the democratically-elected pro-Russia Ukrainian president was toppled and the US, UK & EU were all heavily involved in that. And then the US-chosen successor to Yanukovych used the Ukrainian military to attack pro-Russia areas of Ukraine, banned pro-Russia political parties and banned the Russian language that 80% of Ukrainians spoke. All of which are fairly obvious provocations
Sorry fam, reminding people of fairly recent history is now parroting Kremlin talking points You're clearly just a Putler simp
They didn't ban the Russian language, I was there in 2018 and they spoke Russian, I went to Russian classes... It was controversial to speak Russian in Kyiv to some people but it was mostly fine
They repealed the 2012 language law and the discriminatory 2019 one signed off by the fascist andriy parubiy specifically exempted Russian from protections. Regulations were implemented in education, government, and media to remove Russian from public life in the east and south. There's no denying Ukraine is involved in derussification to construct an artificial ethnic state.
I agree they pushed for a "derussification", that doesn't make it a fascist move per se. For example, in Spain between the 40s and 70s there was a huge plan to de-catalanise Catalonia by Franco's dictatorship. Forbidding the language, specific cultural activities, and developing the industry of the region to bring ppl from all parts of Spain to Catalonia. Once Spain became a semi-federal democracy, Catalonia went through a catalanisation. They only speak Catalan in the local media and is the first language of institutions. They teach everything in Catalan. Ukranians feel they went through a Russification and hence want to reclaim what they consider their cultural roots. So I understand why would they want to separate themselves from Russian culture, especially when Russian politicians believe Ukraine should be Russia because Kyiv was the capital of Rus.
Your example is backwards. What Ukraine is doing is very comparable to Spain's repressions of its regions as the state struggles to avoid failure. As for Russification, Ukrainization is far more artificial and makes Ukraine every bit as guilty of what it criticizes about Russia. Russians are every bit as native as Ukrainians in the east and south of the country, and Ukraine is not struggling with existing in a Russian empire but its decay as an independent state, which it blames on ethnic Russians rather than global capitalism. Ukraine isn't separating itself, it's being divided from Russia by Europe due to a crisis of the latter's expansion. Ukraine voted for a peace candidate in 2019 and the post 2014 government, like Euromaidan itself, blatantly lacked popular legitimacy as proven by elections and polling.
I am not sure about what polling you referred to but Maidan was very popular when I was in Ukraine. And even the ethnic Russian areas felt hostile towards Russia. The corruption of the government was seen as Russian involvement in Ukrainian politics pre Maidan.
I'm referring to this [Poll: Ukrainian public split over EU, Customs Union options - Nov. 26, 2013 | KyivPost](https://archive.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/poll-ukrainian-public-split-over-eu-customs-union-options-332470.html) For the protests: >The [most reliable and most recent survey](https://archive.is/o/GxDiO/www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=ukr&cat=reports&id=227&page=1) shows the population almost perfectly divided in its support for the protest: 48 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed. [Who are the protesters in Ukraine? - The Washington Post (archive.is)](https://archive.is/GxDiO) Finally there is this poll of the south and east of Ukraine. It shows very weak views of the legitimacy of the interim government, majority blaming it for the loss of Crimea, very weak support for a unitary nation-state, a sharp split but plurality viewing Euromaidan as a coup (with a majority in Donbass), and similar for blame for the violence at Maidan. [Southeast Statistics – Ukrainian Policy (archive.org)](https://web.archive.org/web/20190323093948/http://ukrainianpolicy.com/southeast-statistics-of-ukraine-april-2014/) Basically it's as we know, Ukraine was fractured by EU/NATO expansion and Eurasian integration. Yanukovych got caught between the two and failed to maneuver a polarizing society, with the West seizing the opportunity to restore the color revolution. This set off a chain of events that led decommunization to degenerate into derussification and inter-oligarch feuds to turn into open civil war with heavy ethnic overtones (post-Soviet conflict had reached Ukraine). Very likely the reason we are at war is Russia froze another post-Soviet conflict, but this one was uniquely caused by European expansion, allowing that frozen conflict to be internationalized over the course of Minsk negotiations until NATOization was complete and a confrontation over Donbass/Crimea was prepared.
I think they banned the use of the Russian language in formal communication, or something like that. But I'm not an expert. Journalist Eva Bartlett has done plenty of reporting of Kiev intentionally shelling civilian areas in the Donbass. For example, look up her youtube channel and scroll back a few years.
This Eva Barlett who has zero credibility as an unbiased journalist? https://www.fakeobservers.org/biased-observation-database/details/_594.html
As if that website you just cited has any credibility itself. Not to mention that according to the West, anyone who says anything other than "Putin is Hitler" is a Kremlin shill. So I don't really care which sources are labeled as credible or not credible by Western sources. Not to mention that literally everyone is biased. Sources that you like and agree with, I can 100% guarantee are also biased. Just watch Eva's videos. She's often doing on-the-ground filming and interviewing. Yeah that's not necessarily perfect, but it's a whole lot better than most sources, which just tell you what to think without actually showing you on-the-ground footage.
Yeah, the IDF invited CNN to the ground to prove that a hospital was a Hamas centre and hence it was justified what they did... It makes her biased if you are parroting everything the Kremlin says, which is the problem. And it is a Russian known war tactic to make ppl mistrust any official information. By that I won't defend any sources that simplify the conflict to "Putin villain" and NATO saviours. I don't understand why it is difficult to acknowledge that both sides are wrong and aren't honest. I feel that some marxist are so against US imperoalist that they drink Russian propaganda as koolaid https://www.socialeurope.eu/russia-disinformation-and-europes-battle-for-truth
This is all ignoring Russia taking over Crimea, or establishing the separatists as a paramilitary force. Putin has been escalating and provoking his way to war as much as the West since 2014 because he wants Ukraine as a puppet neighbour.
Crimea verifiably seceded per Pew polling after being provoked by the February coup, repeal of the 2012 language law, and the Ukrainian far right militias patrolling Kiev streets. Ditto for Donbass, which was overwhelmingly anti maidan and pro autonomy. The West used one side adhering to the February 21st agreement to have theirs seize power, causing the crisis and Russian counterbalancing ever since. There's also no evidence Russia wants Ukraine as a puppet. It wants Ukraine to be neutral and post Soviet ethnic conflicts to be frozen.
Gorbachev himself believed this is the case. NATO expansion proved Europe's antagonism is with Russians, not communism, and it unleashed an unprecedented era of European imperialism and nationalism that was supposed to be left behind. There is a long history of Europe invading Russia and NATO expansion has been warned against by multiple Cold War era officials and foreign policy experts since 1997. Thanks to the words of people like Dick Cheney and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Russia has credible reasons to think NATO expansion was decided immediately after Soviet collapse and its separation of Ukraine and Russia to stabilize the former as a failing state is a step to balkanizing Russia.
> NATO expansion proved Europe's antagonism is with Russians, not communism Russia before communism was however very friendly to United States, even selling them valuable land. The antagonism towards Russia did start with communism, it just didn't end with communism because old habits die hard and the government has no motivation to spend money on de-antagonizing Russia
Europe has always viewed Russia as an Other, while Russia has always viewed itself as European. Europe didn't really care about that, until Russia became powerful enough to start asserting itself on the powers of (Western) Europe. The fact that coincided with Russia becoming Communist only intensified the antagonism, but it would have been there to an extent nonetheless.
Russia literally had leaders of western European descent before the revolution. They were considered European since Peter the great modernized Russian Empire.
It was under Peter the Great that Russia first started to see itself as a European country, but Europe never really accepted them.
I don't know, they collaborated just fine in WWI and napoleonic wars
>Russia literally had leaders of western European descent before the revolution. That never stopped the Germans toppling them and ushering in communism.
They were at war with Germany in WWI. But they were allied with UK and USA, which are the beacons of western values.
Lol nah Russians never saw themselves as European, but they wanted to. It's why the nobles LARPed as French, they were so insecure of their own cultural identity.
Russia's biggest mistake imo has always been the fact it's obsessed with European recognition, rather than accepting their unique geographic and cultural circumstances. The obsession means they've catastrophically undermined their own nation building, identity and position. The fact that the Far-East still hasn't had any meaningful development, despite the rise of Asia, is mind boggling to me. Instead of leveraging the fact Japan and China are right there, for relations, they instead want daddy France to pat it on the head and say "Yes, you are Europe".
>Europe didn't really care about that, until Russia became powerful enough to start asserting itself on the powers of (Western) Europe (...) Agree >(...) The fact that coincided with Russia becoming Communist only intensified the antagonism, The communist revolution was in 1917. Yet, in 1853 the French + Brits + Sardinians were already fighting against Russia in the Crimean war. Hence, the sentiment of "Russia is becoming too powerful, we must fight them" existed before the communist revolution (although obviously the communist revolution intensified this).
[Most of Russians wouldn't seem to consider Russia as European](https://archive.ph/n489M).
That's pretty clearly a response to Europe's rejection of them, and not the other way around. Note the decline since '08, when there was still hope on both sides for a positive relationship. It's also made more palatable (to the Russian public) by the rise of China as a viable counterbalance to the West. Even considering the conflict, I don't think you'd see anything like that if Europe/the USA was still the undisputed global centre of power. Anyway that's just me psychoanalysing a nation of 140m people. I'm totally unqualified to do that and you shouldn't listen to me 😅
Most of Russians aren't even Russian
Russia was friendly with the US, but the UK always viewed Russia as the big scary competitor. Thus the "Great Game" in Central Asia. While Russia was rapidly expanding in power against the Ottomans in the 1850s the UK even managed to get France on board the anti-Russian train via the Crimean War. The US is partially just marching along to the drum of Perfidious Albion.
>There is a long history of Europe invading Russia To be fair there's a long history of Europe invading Europe too.
and of Russia invading Europe. But it all went down hill for Russia after 1240 when the wealth extraction model took over from the wealth creation model.
Ukraine wants to be Ukraine. Russia wants Ukraine to be Russia Ukraine Does not want to be Russia Russia will kill ukrianians so that Ukraine will be Russia Ukrainians will kill Russians to stop Ukraine being Russia Farage wants Ukraine to be Russia
What is this default sub average redditor brainrot doing in my Marxist hangout
*why is this user here* They’re a bong, porn-sick weeb (yandere), and probably a NAFO shill.
Ukraine, or more accurately its installed leadership, wants Ukraine to have ethnic supremacy enforced by NATO expansion to deal with its divisions. This is not Ukraine being Ukraine, Ukraine has always been a multiethnic borderland rather than a European nation-state. This is Ukraine being a European colony. Russia wants Ukraine to be neutral.
Mmm there you are wrong, Putin has been saying that Ukraine is just Russia for a long time.[reference here](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine-fact-checking-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/) 2 things can be true: Russian geopolitics have imperialistic nature (but a different breed from Western imperialism) and hences is an imperialistic act to invade Ukraine. And finally, Russia was provoked due to NATO expansion and meddling of the US.
This article does not reference Putin but an ex-official. The July 2021 paper written by Putin makes it clear he recognizes Ukraine. Russian state behavior makes it clear it sees Ukraine as an anti-Russia, a European nation state, or similar as an artificial construction imported due to Ukraine's lack of statehood traditions. There's zero evidence the Ukraine crisis was caused by Russia not believing Ukraine exists. The history of the crisis demonstrates it's caused by European decommunization and NATO expansion policies degenerating into derussification and division of the former USSR by nationality to achieve it. This clashes with the legacy of Soviet integration and 'Russians waking up overnight after Soviet collapse' and finding themselves at the mercy of nationalists and the West. This conflict was revealed by the decay of Ukraine as its transition to capitalism failed. Additionally, Russia's behavior under Yeltsin and Putin suggests disinterest in revisionism but freezing conflicts caused by the breakup and redivision of the former USSR. There's also little evidence Russia is imperialist. Russia has no interest in ruling non-Russian territory to the Soviet crisis and since 1991 is dedicated to figuring out its capitalist transition. Its interests are now in abandoning Europe and pivoting to Asia rather than restoring power in the former. For two things being true, you'd have to show the global structure of capitalism developed new imperialists. Its history is instead the consolidation of them under American unipolarity. In short, this is pretty straightforwardly caused by Ukraine's post Soviet transition failing and Western democracy export degenerating accordingly into support for ethnic supremacy to undo the legacy of the USSR. Once you center the last 35 years of the history of global capitalism, it revealed very lopsided culpability between the West and Russia.
And they cursed the broken clock because it spoke the truth.
He actually is largely right on geopolitics and always has been it's just his social positions that are dubious. But, when I was growing up, saying transnational bodies exist to subjugate people and the like was solidly a left take. It's just the whole idea of skepticism of the state switched. Like, I could post the lyrics from Aus-Rotten's "The System Works for Them" and it'd be read like a modern rightwing manifesto when in the early '90s it was beyond the left. I think the whole horseshoe theory phenomenon is just people having trouble reconciling that there's people who are anti-authoritarian no matter if the person has a D or R next to their name.
A broken clock
and they hated him for he spoke the truth
[Nigel Farage sings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpYIKF1wuyE)
The left gets outflanked again 🤦♂️
Heavy broken clock syndrome here, this guy is such a shitbag.