The cold, hard truth in the war between Russia and Ukraine today is that Ukraine’s last-gasp offensive has failed, and no amount of spin will change the outcome.
The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
This is more of a comment on radlibs and baby anarchists, but it strikes me as appropriate here. It’s very easy to idealistically criticize everything that isn’t the way it should be. At some point, though, you have to address reality.
Not to mention that since 2022 this hasn’t been about just the Donbas any more.
Indeed, last I checked Crimea wasn’t part of the Donbas either. This has never been about “protecting the self determination” of regions that so conveniently want to be invaded by Russia (according to Russia).
How does “the US is also bad” change anything about the argument? The argument was that Russia invading and annexing territory is not an expression of self-determination for the people whose homes are being annexed. The US also doing bad shit doesn’t change anything about that because “the US annexes Donbas instead of Russia” isn’t the alternative being presented here
The thing that amuses me the most about whataboutism is that it’s so self-defeating if you think about it for more than just a few seconds. It only makes “sense” from the perspective of someone who thinks that everybody must support their own home country’s actions no matter what. Which is an authoritarian thing, not a democracy thing.
It also doesn’t account for the fact that I’m not even American, so when I see those arguments my “so what” shrug is doubly intense.
By a random dictatorship well known for destabilising and invading its neighbors, absolutely not.
Definitely not talking about the USA. You are also not aware of the fact that the USA is sending troops to Peru to back a government that is currently supported by 6% of its people. But I’m sure this has no relevance at all to the situation in Ukraine. Despite its many honest mistakes (centuries of ongoing slavery and genocide), the USA has been overall a force for good in the world!
In an ideal world where there was a good-faith international actor or organization who could take the role of moderating a referendum, and the outcome be respected by all parties, that would be ideal. However, no such organization exists. The institutions of the so-called “rules based international order” serve the interests of western hegemony. That is why, for example, Catalonia is not able to have an effective referendum for independence from Spain, and that is a perfectly fine state of affairs; just the way things are. Maybe a diplomatic complaint gets filed somewhere, maybe someone calls out how awful it is that police were interfering with the referendum in 2017, and they’re not wrong. But ultimately, nothing fundamentally changes, and that is the point.
Should people just accept the way things are until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable? What should people do if things are only getting worse, and there are no effective, good-faith actors to mediate the best possible solution?
Russia invaded the Donbas in 2014. If they had simply sat there and kept just that, I suspect things would have stabilized in the long run. But Russia doesn’t actually care about the “self-determination” of the people in the land it attempts to conquer, that’s just a convenient excuse it used.
I’m not, Russia invaded both Crimea and the Donbas in 2014. Here’s an article on the Donbas invasion. The guy I was responding to didn’t mention Crimea and neither did I, we weren’t talking about that.
Could you be more specific? This is a 7000 word article that doesn’t appear to support your claim from a skim reading, other than possibly the August 25 entry. Though there the claim is also preceded by stating it’s a fabricated lie.
The article starts with the sentence “This is a timeline of the war in Donbas for the year 2014.” The first item on the timeline is from April 7.
I said above that Russia invaded the Donbas in 2014. This article describes the Russian invasion of the Donbas starting in 2014. The specific details of what happened after that are not particularly relevant.
Or are you still following Russia’s narrative that it was all just troops “on vacation” who were “volunteering” to go to the Donbas and fight Ukraine? With borrowed and stolen tanks and whatnot? Nobody believed that.
These aren’t Russian soldiers. This article is about the civil war in Ukraine. These are people with Ukrainian passports. The article uses the phrasing “Pro-Russian” because the separatists wanted economic integration with Russia after gaining independence. This is pragmatic, they would naturally be cut off from the west, and their existing economic integration with Russia was an asset to them. There’s no invasion detailed in this article, other than by the AFU if you consider the break away republics to have been legitimate.
Are we talking about Ukrainians living there or about Russian military in plain clothing being supplied by military trucks that accidently lose then re-find their plates with every border crossing with military good out of Russian stocks? 🤡
You’re bastarding the theory (mind you this word matters here) of SDT and trying to use it as some escapist argument for murdering other humans. Crimea was taken by force by Russians. No psychological theory changes that fact. Everything past this point is moot. Russia invaded and 2nd time and aren’t being allowed free reign this time. It has nothing to do with jingoism or theoretical psychological beliefs.
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so. They can have a vote (not the invaders variant as that does not count) but you will have no guarantee it will happen though.
Is this going to be a form of 4chan discussion where you will never answer but keep bouncing new questions as a form of discouragement?
Answered your question clearly. You might not like or understand it but answered it was.
And I see you have another question. So 4chan style it is for you. For being bad faith poster I will now stop discussing with you as it is painfully obvious what you want to do here.
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so.
Say the occupied Navajo nation (or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico…) wants to formally secede from the U.S. The U.S. says no, and says they can’t even vote on it. What then?
Without specifying a group or situation, they rules and procedures for seceding should be followed. If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
What is not ok is for a foreign body to interfere. Certainly not by invading said country and killing, torturing and whatnot. If secession is successful then that autonomous new country can join whatever other country at their hearts desire. But again, that other country is not to step in and force secession.
Now what if the plight is of such nature it is not sustainable? The last resort you have is revolution or civil war. Again, not the call of a foreign body to step in and start killing people.
Invading and starting a war which costs the live of innocent people is not the answer.
If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
So if all Puerto Ricans unanimously decide to declare independence and the U.S. says “nah,” they’re just supposed to live with that? How is that just? You even acknowledge that’s the path to a revolution or civil war, which we can both agree is a terrible option. What right does any country have to impose its will (through violence, of course) on a unified region that wants to leave?
Once a region declares independence, why does it have to fight with one arm behind its back? Isn’t it free to seek out allies, as all warring countries have done throughout history?
Should the American Colonies have declared independence? Should they have sought the help of France to even the odds against their much stronger opponent?
Like I said, voting for or wanting a separation does not guarantee you get what you desire.
It’s up to a country to determine how and if secession is possible. If the people of the complete country disagree with this separation the it will not happen and should not happen. Are the rest of a country any less of a factor? It is their country after all.
Discussing other situations specifically is tricky here. The formation of the US for example is incredibly difficult. Where did it start? The French, British or the colonist who formed the current country?
In the case we are discussing we have to deal with country as-is, the Ukraine as a whole. If secession is wanted then this region has to follow the rules and possibilities of Ukraine. iI’m not privy to these tbh.
What is not acceptable is invading that country and start killing people. Masquerading an election as valid while invading that country is not an option to consider as fair or legitimate.
Liberals always try to force leftists to ‘pledge allegiance’ to hyperfocused truisms that they take in isolation and try to make determinative of the entire subject.
I’ll bite. Yes. Russia invaded. No. Russia did not start a war with Ukraine. They joined an existing war with Ukraine in progress.
Apologists always want to go back to who really threw the first stone, as if Russia has been a great world citizen this whole time and as if imperialist invasion was a great way to reduce sanctions or increase economic cooperation
You talk about Russia being a “good world citizen” as though western powers have universally dealt with Russia in good faith. You posit that Russia should turn to means like diplomacy in order to alleviate the sanctions that have been placed upon them and to increase economic cooperation with countries with are subject to NATO influences like Ukraine, but this ignores the fact that western powers have attempted to undermine Russia’s economy for their own benefit since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that measures such as the aforementioned sanctions placed upon Putin’s Russia have been put in place because of his refusal to completely open the country’s markets to predatory foreign interests.
If you’re interested, I suggest you read this article (which appears to be more sympathetic to NATO than myself and most other leftists on Lemmy), since it describes the economic devastation which occurred in Russia in the 1990s, the way in which Putin’s government has kept a complete catastrophe from happening again (although I wouldn’t say that Russia’s current right-wing, hyper nationalistic model for trade is ideal or that it’s anything to strive for, since inequality is still rampant in the country), and the way in which the United States and its allies pressure other countries into opening their markets to free trade only to exploit them once they do. If you don’t have the time to read it, just know that the west’s antagonizing of Russia is the cause of the latter’s lack of diplomatic cooperation with the former, and not the Russian government’s political or economic ambitions.
I do not and would never pretend like other governments act in good faith: two things can be bad at the same time without whataboutism. Have a great weekend, comrade!
Bro I’ll craft apologisms for the USSR occasionally but the idea that they were a non-interventionist polity is fucking ridiculous. The USSR tried to overthrow like half of the governments in the world.
I’m saying if you go all the way back to who looked at who wrong in the lunch line in 1963, you can try to justify anyone invading anyone else’s homes with tanks and missiles, but that doesn’t make it an actual valid justification. Generally the party that “starts a war” is the one that rolls their tanks first.
This claim about “right of self determination” is completely absurd. If that was truly the issue, it wouldn’t be achieved by destroying apartment buildings with missiles, tanks and bombs in an entirely different area.
In both cases that Russia annexed, it was after ‘referendums’. Both places were filled with populations that identified as Russian. In the donbas case, there was reports of Ukrainian shelling before the wider Russian invasion, but that kind of doesn’t matter as there was a civil war going on.
I get really annoyed with the discourse here.
Should Ukrainians have the right to self-determination? Yes. Do I believe anything that comes out of any government’s mouthpiece? Not without careful consideration. Does that mean I sometimes fall for propaganda from either side? Yes. Does it mean that I see through a lot? I hope so. Is it frustrating seeing people cheer for dead Russians even though those same people know that these kids will be shot if they don’t fight? Very
Removed by mod
Do you acknowledge that russia invaded and started a war against Ukraine?
Removed by mod
Through properly monitored and implemented referendums, yeah.
By a random dictatorship well known for destabilising and invading its neighbors, absolutely not.
You say this shit like it isn’t a euphemism.
Democracy
Dictatorship
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Nothing to do with me. I’m a programmer lol
Nothing to do with the US. I wouldn’t support them invading a neighbor after a bogus vote they arranged. Whataboutism.
Independent monitors to make sure the vote is fair.
Removed by mod
–Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds
This is more of a comment on radlibs and baby anarchists, but it strikes me as appropriate here. It’s very easy to idealistically criticize everything that isn’t the way it should be. At some point, though, you have to address reality.
Removed by mod
Is this supposed to be a gotcha? There are tons of international vote monitor groups. Everyone uses them all the time.
Come on, Freedom Loving Nations like Russia don’t use them to monitor their Totally Fair and Unbiased Elections.
No answer to that one.
Not to mention that since 2022 this hasn’t been about just the Donbas any more.
Indeed, last I checked Crimea wasn’t part of the Donbas either. This has never been about “protecting the self determination” of regions that so conveniently want to be invaded by Russia (according to Russia).
Are you saying Crimeans want to be part of Ukraine?
I’m saying that Crimea isn’t part of the Donbas.
How does “the US is also bad” change anything about the argument? The argument was that Russia invading and annexing territory is not an expression of self-determination for the people whose homes are being annexed. The US also doing bad shit doesn’t change anything about that because “the US annexes Donbas instead of Russia” isn’t the alternative being presented here
The thing that amuses me the most about whataboutism is that it’s so self-defeating if you think about it for more than just a few seconds. It only makes “sense” from the perspective of someone who thinks that everybody must support their own home country’s actions no matter what. Which is an authoritarian thing, not a democracy thing.
It also doesn’t account for the fact that I’m not even American, so when I see those arguments my “so what” shrug is doubly intense.
Definitely not talking about the USA. You are also not aware of the fact that the USA is sending troops to Peru to back a government that is currently supported by 6% of its people. But I’m sure this has no relevance at all to the situation in Ukraine. Despite its many honest mistakes (centuries of ongoing slavery and genocide), the USA has been overall a force for good in the world!
In an ideal world where there was a good-faith international actor or organization who could take the role of moderating a referendum, and the outcome be respected by all parties, that would be ideal. However, no such organization exists. The institutions of the so-called “rules based international order” serve the interests of western hegemony. That is why, for example, Catalonia is not able to have an effective referendum for independence from Spain, and that is a perfectly fine state of affairs; just the way things are. Maybe a diplomatic complaint gets filed somewhere, maybe someone calls out how awful it is that police were interfering with the referendum in 2017, and they’re not wrong. But ultimately, nothing fundamentally changes, and that is the point.
Should people just accept the way things are until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable? What should people do if things are only getting worse, and there are no effective, good-faith actors to mediate the best possible solution?
Removed by mod
Large countries invading and annexing stuff is not a solution to any of those problems. It is a regression to an even worse system.
The UN??
And zoom, wow those goalposts can move!
Russia invaded the Donbas in 2014. If they had simply sat there and kept just that, I suspect things would have stabilized in the long run. But Russia doesn’t actually care about the “self-determination” of the people in the land it attempts to conquer, that’s just a convenient excuse it used.
But they didn’t? They invaded Crimea. If you’ve conflated the Donbas and Crimea on a map you will have a very skewed understanding of this conflict.
I’m not, Russia invaded both Crimea and the Donbas in 2014. Here’s an article on the Donbas invasion. The guy I was responding to didn’t mention Crimea and neither did I, we weren’t talking about that.
Could you be more specific? This is a 7000 word article that doesn’t appear to support your claim from a skim reading, other than possibly the August 25 entry. Though there the claim is also preceded by stating it’s a fabricated lie.
The article starts with the sentence “This is a timeline of the war in Donbas for the year 2014.” The first item on the timeline is from April 7.
I said above that Russia invaded the Donbas in 2014. This article describes the Russian invasion of the Donbas starting in 2014. The specific details of what happened after that are not particularly relevant.
Or are you still following Russia’s narrative that it was all just troops “on vacation” who were “volunteering” to go to the Donbas and fight Ukraine? With borrowed and stolen tanks and whatnot? Nobody believed that.
These aren’t Russian soldiers. This article is about the civil war in Ukraine. These are people with Ukrainian passports. The article uses the phrasing “Pro-Russian” because the separatists wanted economic integration with Russia after gaining independence. This is pragmatic, they would naturally be cut off from the west, and their existing economic integration with Russia was an asset to them. There’s no invasion detailed in this article, other than by the AFU if you consider the break away republics to have been legitimate.
Define: People in the Donbas
Are we talking about Ukrainians living there or about Russian military in plain clothing being supplied by military trucks that accidently lose then re-find their plates with every border crossing with military good out of Russian stocks? 🤡
You’re bastarding the theory (mind you this word matters here) of SDT and trying to use it as some escapist argument for murdering other humans. Crimea was taken by force by Russians. No psychological theory changes that fact. Everything past this point is moot. Russia invaded and 2nd time and aren’t being allowed free reign this time. It has nothing to do with jingoism or theoretical psychological beliefs.
So no answer then?
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so. They can have a vote (not the invaders variant as that does not count) but you will have no guarantee it will happen though.
Is this going to be a form of 4chan discussion where you will never answer but keep bouncing new questions as a form of discouragement?
Removed by mod
Answered your question clearly. You might not like or understand it but answered it was.
And I see you have another question. So 4chan style it is for you. For being bad faith poster I will now stop discussing with you as it is painfully obvious what you want to do here.
Removed by mod
https://feddit.nl/comment/1945149
Removed by mod
Say the occupied Navajo nation (or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico…) wants to formally secede from the U.S. The U.S. says no, and says they can’t even vote on it. What then?
Without specifying a group or situation, they rules and procedures for seceding should be followed. If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
What is not ok is for a foreign body to interfere. Certainly not by invading said country and killing, torturing and whatnot. If secession is successful then that autonomous new country can join whatever other country at their hearts desire. But again, that other country is not to step in and force secession.
Now what if the plight is of such nature it is not sustainable? The last resort you have is revolution or civil war. Again, not the call of a foreign body to step in and start killing people.
Invading and starting a war which costs the live of innocent people is not the answer.
So if all Puerto Ricans unanimously decide to declare independence and the U.S. says “nah,” they’re just supposed to live with that? How is that just? You even acknowledge that’s the path to a revolution or civil war, which we can both agree is a terrible option. What right does any country have to impose its will (through violence, of course) on a unified region that wants to leave?
Once a region declares independence, why does it have to fight with one arm behind its back? Isn’t it free to seek out allies, as all warring countries have done throughout history?
Should the American Colonies have declared independence? Should they have sought the help of France to even the odds against their much stronger opponent?
Like I said, voting for or wanting a separation does not guarantee you get what you desire.
It’s up to a country to determine how and if secession is possible. If the people of the complete country disagree with this separation the it will not happen and should not happen. Are the rest of a country any less of a factor? It is their country after all.
Discussing other situations specifically is tricky here. The formation of the US for example is incredibly difficult. Where did it start? The French, British or the colonist who formed the current country?
In the case we are discussing we have to deal with country as-is, the Ukraine as a whole. If secession is wanted then this region has to follow the rules and possibilities of Ukraine. iI’m not privy to these tbh.
What is not acceptable is invading that country and start killing people. Masquerading an election as valid while invading that country is not an option to consider as fair or legitimate.
Liberals always try to force leftists to ‘pledge allegiance’ to hyperfocused truisms that they take in isolation and try to make determinative of the entire subject.
I’ll bite. Yes. Russia invaded. No. Russia did not start a war with Ukraine. They joined an existing war with Ukraine in progress.
That they started by taking Crimea, exactly.
Removed by mod
So you just have no idea what I’m talking about, then?
I bet you watched Trump’s impeachment with baited breath. Do you even remember what it was about?
Apologists always want to go back to who really threw the first stone, as if Russia has been a great world citizen this whole time and as if imperialist invasion was a great way to reduce sanctions or increase economic cooperation
You talk about Russia being a “good world citizen” as though western powers have universally dealt with Russia in good faith. You posit that Russia should turn to means like diplomacy in order to alleviate the sanctions that have been placed upon them and to increase economic cooperation with countries with are subject to NATO influences like Ukraine, but this ignores the fact that western powers have attempted to undermine Russia’s economy for their own benefit since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that measures such as the aforementioned sanctions placed upon Putin’s Russia have been put in place because of his refusal to completely open the country’s markets to predatory foreign interests.
If you’re interested, I suggest you read this article (which appears to be more sympathetic to NATO than myself and most other leftists on Lemmy), since it describes the economic devastation which occurred in Russia in the 1990s, the way in which Putin’s government has kept a complete catastrophe from happening again (although I wouldn’t say that Russia’s current right-wing, hyper nationalistic model for trade is ideal or that it’s anything to strive for, since inequality is still rampant in the country), and the way in which the United States and its allies pressure other countries into opening their markets to free trade only to exploit them once they do. If you don’t have the time to read it, just know that the west’s antagonizing of Russia is the cause of the latter’s lack of diplomatic cooperation with the former, and not the Russian government’s political or economic ambitions.
I do not and would never pretend like other governments act in good faith: two things can be bad at the same time without whataboutism. Have a great weekend, comrade!
Removed by mod
Bro I’ll craft apologisms for the USSR occasionally but the idea that they were a non-interventionist polity is fucking ridiculous. The USSR tried to overthrow like half of the governments in the world.
Are you saying who started the war isn’t relevant? Why would you not want to determine this to have a full picture of the situation?
I’m saying if you go all the way back to who looked at who wrong in the lunch line in 1963, you can try to justify anyone invading anyone else’s homes with tanks and missiles, but that doesn’t make it an actual valid justification. Generally the party that “starts a war” is the one that rolls their tanks first.
Am I a liberal? News to me. I seek no pledge from you. Stop chasing shadows.
What war was Ukraine involved in with russia?
Removed by mod
What can I say? I cannot change the way you process information.
Perhaps you were wrong?
Removed by mod
https://feddit.nl/comment/1945149
This means nothing to an adult, it means everything to a child.
I’m saying this is low effort bait.
Ok. Then say it if you think that. Reverting to a picture as an answer is rarely a valid response imho.
Removed by mod
Ditto
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Why do you keep changing the topic?
How many slurs have you seen directed towards Russians - since this is worse?
This claim about “right of self determination” is completely absurd. If that was truly the issue, it wouldn’t be achieved by destroying apartment buildings with missiles, tanks and bombs in an entirely different area.
In both cases that Russia annexed, it was after ‘referendums’. Both places were filled with populations that identified as Russian. In the donbas case, there was reports of Ukrainian shelling before the wider Russian invasion, but that kind of doesn’t matter as there was a civil war going on.
I get really annoyed with the discourse here.
Should Ukrainians have the right to self-determination? Yes. Do I believe anything that comes out of any government’s mouthpiece? Not without careful consideration. Does that mean I sometimes fall for propaganda from either side? Yes. Does it mean that I see through a lot? I hope so. Is it frustrating seeing people cheer for dead Russians even though those same people know that these kids will be shot if they don’t fight? Very