There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

What happened to the Crimea bridge and why is it important?

Traffic on the single bridge that links Russia to Moscow-annexed Crimea and serves as a key supply route for the Kremlin’s forces in the war with Ukraine came to a standstill on Monday after one of its sections was blown up, killing a couple and wounding their daughter.

The RBC Ukraine news agency reported that explosions were heard on the bridge, with Russian military bloggers reporting two strikes.

RBC Ukraine and another Ukrainian news outlet Ukrainska Pravda said the attack was planned jointly by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian navy, and involved sea drones.

CheeseNoodle ,

Fuck I blocked one troll and this entire thread literally decreased in size by more than half.

EhList ,
@EhList@lemmy.world avatar

Saw this comment and two minutes after blocking a certain communist cat the whole thread is clear!

rustyfish ,
@rustyfish@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, he also has been a mod here until yesterday for like a day or so and got a couple of posts removed. I tell you, some modlogs are a wild read.

dustojnikhummer ,

What happened? Good thing happened.

Blursty ,
@Blursty@lemmygrad.ml avatar

It achieved nothing but the killing of two innocent people and almost killing their daughter. What was good about it?

dustojnikhummer ,

It damaged a vital transport link. Shame the railway still stands.

Blursty ,
@Blursty@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Not an answer. There was nothing good about it. It was a stupid waste of time and innocent life.

dustojnikhummer ,

It directly helps the Soviet War machine. Ukraine needs to take it down fully

Blursty ,
@Blursty@lemmygrad.ml avatar

The Soviet union hasn’t existed for several decades. Are you a time traveler?

dustojnikhummer ,

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    Blursty ,
    @Blursty@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Ruski? Is that some kind of slang?

    Just to be clear, you think the Russians are communists?

    dustojnikhummer ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    Prandom_returns , (edited )

    Lemmingrad wank moderated community. I’m out.

    Edit: it appeara the problem has been rectified lol

    bloubz ,
    • lemmygrad
    • it’s lemmy.world
    • good riddance
    Prandom_returns ,
    • who gives a fuck
    • it’s moderated by a lemmingrad user, might as well be lemmingrad (see removed comment that said “tankies mad”)
    • same
    bloubz ,

    You said you’re out my brother :) Btw I don’t see which mod is lemmygrad.ml

    hypelightfly ,

    Look at the modlog, it's public.

    MindCap ,

    For real. These tankies running lemmy are going to kill it in its crib.

    EhList ,
    @EhList@lemmy.world avatar

    If you block the two “communists”, who are oddly defending Russian fascism, the thread clears right up

    absentthereaper ,
    @absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Liberal hypocrite, maybe you should leave

    Prandom_returns ,

    Smd tankie

    absentthereaper , (edited )
    @absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    No thanks, I don’t fuck straights, settlers, or liberals anymore. Can’t wait for your country to fall!

    Prandom_returns ,

    Wow so quirky, unique and clever. Tee-hee.

    rustyfish ,
    @rustyfish@lemmy.world avatar

    With this bridge being the only link between Russian occupied Crimea and the Russian mainland, we can look forward to a loooooooot more attacks of this kind.

    Franfran2424 ,

    nafo detected, opinion discarded

    Nalivai ,

    Зайдите в первый отдел за повесткой, товарищ

    MindCap ,

    Oh my the tankies don’t like this at all.

    InverseParallax ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    Clbull ,

    If it weren’t for Prigozhin and his Wagner mercenaries staging a mutiny against the Russian military, I would have cast serious doubt on Ukraine’s counteroffensive succeeding. Regardless of what you think about the competency of the Russian armed forces, it can’t be denied that Wagner are one of their few effective units in force.

    Ukraine has remained boldly united in the face of a long and a bloody war on their own doorstep, whereas we’ve seen deteriorating Russian morale, both within the country’s borders and on the frontlines.

    At this rate I think that Zelenskyy will retake Crimea and the Donbas within months.

    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    !remindme 2 months

    The counteroffensive has made almost no progress and is nowhere near the being able to retake the Donbas or Crimea. This article is proof that they still cannot muster enough force to disable the rail-line (the only military supply aspect of this bridge) let alone recapture territory.

    Every month that Ukraine does not come to the bargaining table is another month of conscripted soldiers sent to the meat grinder.

    RemindMe ,
    @RemindMe@programming.dev avatar

    Gotcha! I’ll remind you at Monday, August 14, 2023, 9:11:16 PM UTC.

    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Good bot

    mea_rah ,

    That is not two months from now?

    Ategon ,

    They edited the message, used to be 1 month

    mea_rah ,

    Ah thanks. Makes sense. Is there some way to see the edits?

    Ategon ,

    Dont think so, only way I know is cause I was checking around to see if the bot was responding to people properly and saw that comment early before it was edited

    Getawombatupya ,

    Who invaded who again?

    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    What does that have to do with the effectiveness of the counter offensive?

    www.rferl.org/a/…/32476276.html

    “Well, campaigns are judged on how much they contribute to the strategic gains. So, [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelenskiy’s strategic aim is to secure his country’s political sovereignty, territorial integrity, and that sets conditions for economic prosperity. That’s how I read them. And so, a successful counteroffensive will achieve all of those or move toward achieving those.

    So, what that means on the ground is that Ukraine’s forces have to seize back enough territory from the Russians to, at the minimum, force the Russians to negotiate from a position of weakness and from a position that Zelenskiy can secure political sovereignty, territorial integrity, and thus economic prosperity. So, it’s not an objective of how many miles, how many cities. It’s the relationship of the campaign and the strategic objectives that determines success.”

    Let me know when Ukraine is able to achieve enough success to force Russia to the table on their terms.

    EhList ,
    @EhList@lemmy.world avatar

    They could also force the Russians to the table when the costs become too high for their forces to maintain. Russia can only lose so many to the meat grinder.

    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Ironic seeing the human wave of Ukrainians sent into the land mines and open fields to be hit by indirect fire. Russia has no problems supplying this war of attrition and it could be argued that they sought to impose such a war after pivoting from the maneuver based doctrine of the start of the SMO. As I quoted in the rail line the Russian supply chain is limited by the rail and as such would be unable to sustain themselves far from the lines as opposed to the established and new lines they have created to the Donbass region.

    From an old comment of mine: lemmygrad.ml/comment/569600

    https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/21701946-4f07-4df9-a616-5e2b9e137397.png

    https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/4af5d70d-7018-4ffa-88de-887647698e49.png

    https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/3c1b3b64-f33c-4b07-8d75-857929f6cbae.png

    …substack.com/…/dissecting-west-point-think-tanks

    “The capacity to detect and strike targets at ever-greater distances and with ever-growing precision increases the vulnerability of dense troop concentrations, and therefore limits the ability to conduct large-scale sequenced and concentrated operations. As such, in order to enhance survivability, current battlefield conditions are forcing military units to disperse into smaller formations, dig in, or both, unless these conditions are effectively countered. As a result, the battlefield tends to become more fragmented, offering more independent action to lower tactical formations as the depth of the front is expanding to a considerable extent.”

    “As a survey of decades of history illustrates, Russian military strategy over the past decades has correctly forecasted a number of implications of advancements in weapons, as well as sensor technologies, that are currently affecting the character of warfare in Ukraine.”

    “The operational level of war sits between tactics, which consists of organizing and employing fighting forces on or near the battlefield, and strategy, which involves aspects of long-term and high-level theatre operations, and the government’s leadership. The Soviet Union was the first country to officially distinguish this third level of military thinking, when it was introduced as part of the deep operation military theory that its armed forces developed during the 1920s and 1930s and utilized during the Second World War.”

    “After the failure of the initial invasion, the subsequent period of the fighting in the Donbas was at first marked by Russian dominance in fires. Besides precision munitions, the employment of UAVs for target detection greatly enhanced the effectiveness of Russia’s large numbers of legacy artillery systems. Russian artillery batteries employing UAVs for target detection generally showed themselves capable of engaging Ukrainian positions within minutes after being detected. As a result, Ukrainian infantry companies were forced to disperse and often occupied front lines up to three kilometers wide. Consequently, battalions covered frontages that are traditionally the responsibility of brigades. Russian artillery superiority and sensor density even prevented Ukrainians from concentrating in units above company size, because anything larger would be detected prematurely and effectively targeted from a distance.”

    “Russian forces also rarely employ armor and infantry in concentrated assaults and in the defense occupy dispersed positions, while increasingly drawing on artillery to blunt Ukrainian attacks.”

    “However, current battlefield conditions are adding the related difficulty of achieving the concentration of forces necessary for establishing main efforts during offensive operations. This is reducing large-scale engagements and thereby necessitating a concentration and synchronization of effects, rather than a traditional physical massing of troops. In turn, this places an extra burden on command and control, especially when contested by electronic warfare. Only by disrupting the opponent’s kill chain can larger formations regain the ability to concentrate and engage in maneuver warfare. During the war in Ukraine, superiority in kill-chain effectiveness has become one of the prime objectives for both sides. In this war and any other characterized by the same dynamics, this superiority becomes an essential condition for victory.”

    With a doctrine advantage, western acknowledged electronic warfare, indirect fire, and air support superiority combined with an established, modernized supply line its JOEVER

    EhList ,
    @EhList@lemmy.world avatar

    Ok and this Simplicus is who exactly? What reason should I accept that they have any knowledge or experience that makes their opinion worth anything at all? Im asking because you are using them as a source and I cannot find anything that shows that they are an informed source.

    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    He is breaking down a very dense report from the West Point and the Department of Military Instruction: mwi.usma.edu/the-russian-way-of-war-in-ukraine-a-…

    Most of the quotes ive used are also from that same report

    morain ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    nbafantest ,

    Ukraine is making good progress and there is no doubt how degraded and brittle the Russian defenses are.

    As the campaign succeeds, the impacts of their striking capabilities will become more and more clear.

    Mirshe ,

    Remember that degraded morale has a compounding effect as well. If a position hears that four other positions near them have failed, they might decide “well fuck it”, and then the positions behind THEM hear “well now five positions have failed” and they scramble, and so on. Combine that with the fact that Russian morale is already reportedly extremely low (who would’ve thought conscripts make shitty and unhappy soldiers).

    Dohnakun ,

    What is with the Prigozhin/Wagner mutiny anyway? Never heard anything after.

    shimura ,

    It died when Belarus intervened and brokered a compromise between the Wagner group and Putin. Still unfolding so we still don’t know the full story. Here’s a summary from Business Insider.

    MercuryUprising ,

    My guess is he got paid off to back down. Putin has a lot of money and probably offered him safety in Belarus as well as a huge chunk of change for him and his troops.

    Nalivai ,

    It’s not exactly about money, Prigozhin has full control over the mercenary company Konkord, which deals in “authoritarian support” and over the years amassed more money and influence then I can even imagine.

    MercuryUprising ,

    I’ve never heard of a super rich person who didn’t want more money

    Hedup ,

    In pictures only one road span seems to be damaged. That would elave the other road with 2 lines and railroad with 2 lines still available. Could this really have an effect on the supply efforts beyond halving the maximum throughput? I don’t imagine the bridge is constantly being used at maximum capacity.

    SomeoneElse ,

    I guess the whole thing could be structurally unsound now without it being visible from these photos.

    Hedup ,

    I guess we’ll just wait and see if Russians actually use it.

    Snowpix ,
    @Snowpix@lemmy.ca avatar

    It didn’t need to be blown up to be structurally unsound, it was already. The bridge was a well known rush job that was built against the advice of several engineers but Putin’s hubris knows no bounds.

    nbafantest ,

    I believe the bridge is to be totally closed to car traffic for at least a month but that trains work.

    kokesh ,
    @kokesh@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    The death of civilians is not good news.

    EnderWi99in ,

    Any Russian citizen moving into Crimea negates the privilege of being labeled a civilian at this point.

    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    There is no way to know how long they have been living there and this is the reasoning war criminals use

    lolcatnip ,

    Like Putin the the people running his army?

    InverseParallax ,

    That’s literally the reasoning putin used to take it…

    galloog1 ,

    You are not wrong but this is well within the strategic definition of collateral damage in this case so it is not relevant.

    EhList ,
    @EhList@lemmy.world avatar

    There are records. Russia and Ukraine are modern-ish states Russian backwardness aside.

    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Such a backward state that it has Hypersonic missles while the west provides munitions that can’t seem to aid the counter offensive (they are stil proooobin’) or disable a rail line on a bridge.

    EhList ,
    @EhList@lemmy.world avatar

    I have to wonder how many are told it is safe or that they aren’t stealing a living family’s stuff

    IntrepidIceIgloo ,

    death of civilians is never good news, but if russia doesn’t want its citizens to be at risk then they shouldnt invade other countries

    assassin_aragorn ,

    This is why war is horrible. Ukraine made a brilliant tactical move here in terms of strategy, but civilians still died. Whatever you think of the adults, a child was injured and is now orphaned because of this attack. But it was still necessary, and there will be more situations like this as Ukraine continues its counteroffensive and hopefully fully recaptures their stolen land. Crimea belongs to Ukraine.

    Lemmy is way more intelligent, both cognitively and emotionally, than Reddit was. We can recognize the necessity of this attack and cheer Ukraine for making such a huge tactical move, but we can also be remorseful for the civilians who have had their lives changed because of the attack.

    This is why war fucking sucks. There are no gentleman or ladies in wars. There is nothing honorable about it. There’s just cold logic for killing your enemy and how you can more easily do that. If you can avoid civilian casualties you will, but if it can’t be avoided, then it is what it is.

    Lest someone mistake this as a pro Russian “stop the war!” comment – Putin can stop all of this anytime he wants. He withdraws all forces, the war ends. He fights for conquest, Ukraine fights for survival. As long as Ukrainians want to fight for their country and Putin doesn’t end the war, the war continues. Make no mistake, all of this carnage is his fault.

    dustojnikhummer ,

    Death of civilians in Crimea wouldn’t happen if Russia didn’t invade.

    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    “The 2004 Madrid train bombings (also known in Spain as 11M) were a series of coordinated, nearly simultaneous bombings against the Cercanías commuter train system of Madrid, Spain, on the morning of 11 March 2004—three days before Spain’s general elections. The explosions killed 193 people and injured around 2,000. The bombings constituted the deadliest terrorist attack carried out in the history of Spain and the deadliest in Europe since 1988. The official investigation by the Spanish judiciary found that the attacks were directed by al-Qaeda, allegedly as a reaction to Spain’s involvement in the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq”

    On 6 July 2006, a videotaped statement by Shehzad Tanweer was broadcast by Al-Jazeera. In the video, which may have been edited to include remarks by al-Zawahiri, Tanweer said:

    <pre style="background-color:#ffffff;">
<span style="color:#323232;">What you have witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel.
</span>

    Tanweer argued that the non-Muslims of Britain deserve such attacks because they voted for a government which “continues to oppress our mothers, children, brothers and sisters in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya.”

    Targeting civilians with explosives because the country they are citizens of is engaged with war is decried as “terrorism” so are you stating that the Ukrainian officials responsible for this are terrorists?

    Maggoty ,

    That’s a bad faith argument if ever there was one. At that point Russia could walk into any country behind human shields and nobody would be allowed to do anything.

    There is a giant difference between targeting civilians and a couple civilians getting killed while targeting strategic infrastructure.

    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    How is it bad faith?

    Intentionally targeting civilians because they country they are from is at war with the country initiating the attack is called terrorism by many other countries. Ukraine could have focused their attack on disabling the rail line, which is the primary aspect of the Russian supply chain, instead it was against the civilian roadway, exactly the same as the previous attack utilizing the truck bomb. Exploding vehicles is another common mode of terrorism, I might add.

    EhList ,
    @EhList@lemmy.world avatar

    The roadway is used by both. Don’t be more ignorant that you must.

    The nation these civilians were attacked in is at war so it is not by any definition a terrorist attack.

    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Wrong the rail line is the means by which military support is moved, Russia has a history of utilizing rail as their supply lines.

    “The reason Russia is unique in having railroad brigades is that logistically, Russian forces are tied to railroad from factory to army depot and to combined arms army and, where possible, to the division/brigade level. No other European nation uses railroads to the extent that the Russian army does.”

    “Trying to resupply the Russian army beyond the Russian gauge rail network would force them to rely mostly on their truck force until railroad troops could reconfigure/repair the railroad or build a new one. Russia’s truck logistic support, which would be crucial in an invasion of Eastern Europe, is limited by the number of trucks and range of operations.”

    warontherocks.com/…/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-loo…

    “Russia has to defend in 360°. It is heavily dependent on barge and rail movement. It does not have the manpower of Soviet times. It cannot be strong everywhere at once and has gone to highly mobile brigades so that it can rapidly assemble forces where needed.”

    “The vast majority of personnel and cargo are transported via rail for civil and military purposes. Rail transport is the primary means of logistical support for most military operations (including current operations in and around Eastern Ukraine) and is an absolute necessity for any type of large-scale movement throughout the great expanse that is the Russian Federation”

    “Due to the importance of rail for military operations, the Russian Federation has a separate branch, the Railroad Troops, dedicated to protecting, servicing, and maintaining rail service in combat and austere conditions for the Russian Armed Forces.”

    …army.mil/…/2017-07-The-Russian-Way-of-War-Grau-B…

    EhList ,
    @EhList@lemmy.world avatar

    No because unlike your examples, which are false equivalences, the bridge is in a nation actively at war. Those civilians died occupying land.

    If I die due to visiting an active war zone is it my fault?

    C4RCOSA ,
    @C4RCOSA@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    I am not in the business of victim blaiming rather assigning blame to those who executed the attack. Given my response quoting us army knowledge of Russian operations why would they not disable the rail line? Instead they target vehicles on the civilian bridge hence my classification as a terroist attack, one assigned to the PREVIOUS attack on the SAME bridge, one would think they would learn unless their motive is different

    xePBMg9 ,

    The bridge is a military target though.

    absentthereaper ,
    @absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    They’d have still gotten their shit blown up by Kyiv, who has been blowing up everyone who voted in a referendum to become Russian. Fucking christ am I the only one capable of remembering anything more than two fucking years old? Or is this another one of those “conveniently ignored” bits for y’all NAFO rimjobbers?

    dustojnikhummer ,

    Don’t worry, I remember what happened before 2014. I didn’t have any sympathy for separatists then and I don’t have now either.

    absentthereaper ,
    @absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    …So for the crime of wanting to separate from an increasingly-fascist government, you want their bridges blown up and their civilians turned into chunky salsa. You’re a fucking ghoul; and part of me wonders how you’d feel about American separatists when that day eventually comes.

    dustojnikhummer ,

    how you’d feel about American separatists

    If they want to join Canada or Mexico then the same. Independence =/= stealing for another country.

    you want their bridges blown up and their civilians turned into chunky salsa

    Nobody is forcing Russians to visit Ukrainian territory.

    absentthereaper ,
    @absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    You’re a fucking ghoul, and I pray you wind up having to live through the monstrosity you’d subject others to.

    52fighters ,
    @52fighters@kbin.social avatar

    I heard the naval drone attached from inside the Azov Sea which shows Ukraine has done something very unexpected. How did the front get to the north side of the bridge?

    skillissuer ,

    if you look at the photos and map, you’ll see that the span dropped was the one in the middle, that is the one carrying traffic from crimea to krasnodar. it’s pretty unusual either way, whether drones got there from south or north

    PenguinJuice ,

    I believe the reasoning is that this is the only bridge into and out of Crimea from the Russian side.

    YellowBendyBoy ,

    Honey, how about we spice our family vacation up this year and go to a drought stricken stolen land near an active war zone?

    Ullallulloo ,
    @Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com avatar

    San Diego is nice this time of year.

    Wrench ,

    The war zones are the homeless colonies.

    Ullallulloo ,
    @Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com avatar

    I was thinking Tijuana, but that might work too.

    Maggoty ,

    Comic con is starting soon… May want to wait for that to be done.

    fidodo ,

    Let’s drive over a military asset during a war! I wish no harm to any civilians but driving over this bridge isn’t like chilling in a cafe in a city. You need to be either stupid or accepting of the risk to drive over this bridge.

    kescusay ,
    @kescusay@lemmy.world avatar

    At this point, any Russian families remaining in Crimea really should leave for their own safety. They know full well they live on stolen land.

    BloodForTheBloodGod ,

    Many of them moved there as active contributors to the genocide in that region.

    lemmyshmemmy ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    BloodForTheBloodGod ,

    Standard for any genocide, really. The Chinese have the same policy.

    hark ,
    @hark@lemmy.world avatar

    True, as does Israel.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    What? Do you have anything that shows the demographics significantly changed at all? The population was 76% russian in 2014 before Russia took it. You have data that shows that significantly increased?

    BloodForTheBloodGod ,

    Not gonna engage, JAQoff.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    barsoap ,

    No it was at 67.9%, up from 60.4% in 2001 down from 67% in 1989. Up from 6.6% in 1850 when Russification really started. Also note the suspicious absence of Tatars during the times of the Soviet Union and their return afterwards. And TBH I trust those censuses 2014 onwards about as much as I trust Russian referenda.

    Also, “people speak Russian at home” is not, by a long shot, the same thing as “want to be part of Russia” much less “want to live under <currenttsar>'s boot” or “want to suffer yet another Holodomor”. Crimea had a referendum just as the rest of Ukraine did and it didn’t want to be part of Russia by a good margin. The question of “part of Ukraine or independent” was more split, but that turned towards “part of Ukraine” as Ukraine failed to treat Crimea badly and independence would be difficult for such a small country in such an exposed situation.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    And TBH I trust those censuses 2014 onwards about as much as I trust Russian referenda.

    Then just speak to some people physically in Crimea? You’re on the internet it’s not difficult to seek out and have conversations with people in different places in the world.

    but that turned towards “part of Ukraine” as Ukraine failed to treat Crimea badly and independence would be difficult for such a small country in such an exposed situation.

    Ukraine did treat Crimea badly though? Are you completely unaware of the political turmoil in Ukraine prior to any of this? Increasing ethnic persecution against Russians and finally banning the russian language is what started the separatism in these regions.

    barsoap ,

    Then just speak to some people physically in Crimea? You’re on the internet it’s not difficult to seek out and have conversations with people in different places in the world.

    Of course. Because that’s totally not something the FSB would do to sniff out partisans and shit. There’s a war going on in case you haven’t noticed and truth is always its first victim.

    Increasing ethnic persecution against Russians and finally banning the russian language is what started the separatism in these regions.

    Neither was there prosecution nor was the Russian language banned. The Ukrainian army largely operates in Russian, FFS.

    I suggest you have a good look at the reliability of whatever place you get your information from.

    galloog1 ,

    It’s Russian propaganda, we know where they get their information from.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    www.europarl.europa.eu/…/E-8-2014-010539_EN.html

    This was put to the EU at the time by a greek parliamentarian that cared about what would happen to greeks in the region. But refers to the law change I am talking about which affected several other ethnic groups.

    barsoap ,

    Why are you quoting a member of the Golden Dawn as if Nazis were a reliable source of information? Are you a Nazbol?

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Lmao I had no idea he was to be honest. You’re right. Let’s get something else then. (And no I’m certainly fucking not.)

    A couple of western media articles discussing the split the existing language law was causing in the country:

    2000: Ukraine wages war on Russian language

    2012: Russian language debate splits Ukraine

    2012: Ukrainians(far right) protest against Russian language law

    2014(when the law actually occurred): Ukraine Revokes Linguistic Rights

    This last one is the most interesting, also 2014 from Time: Many Ukrainians Want Russia To Invade

    Within two days of taking power, the revolutionary leaders passed a bill revoking the rights of Ukraine’s regions to make Russian an official language alongside Ukrainian. That outraged the Russian-speaking half of the country, and the ban was quickly lifted. But the damage was done. With that one ill-considered piece of legislation, the new leaders had convinced millions of ethnic Russians that a wave of repression awaited them. So it was no surprise on Friday when a livid mob in Crimea attacked a liberal lawmaker who came to reason with them. Struggling to make his case over the screaming throng, Petro Poroshenko was chased back to his car amid cries of “fascist!”

    barsoap , (edited )

    Remember how that law never went into effect and in fact regions have the right to have secondary official languages? Including Russian?

    Also, that it wasn’t a law furnishing new modes of repression but a law repealing the granting of rights to minority languages? And the law was by an interim government? And Right Sector and shit massively lost votes after all that?

    Yes, Ukraine had a political divide roughly among the Russian/Ukrainian native language rift, caused by Russia (Empire, USSR) by the Russification programme, by Russia (Federation) stoking it with hybrid warfare. Ukraine was torn between going to the west, into the EU (NATO wasn’t nearly as popular), or towards Russia’s economic bloc. Becoming part of Russia was never on the table, that’s always been a small minority position of a minority position.

    That very much changed towards majority support for NATO accession after the annexation of Crimea (and, no, Crimeans not being asked doesn’t explain the shift), and to absolutely overwhelming after the 2022 invasion.

    Russia overplayed its hand. Massively: They could’ve kept Ukraine in alignment limbo, maybe even have them turn eastwards, but they just had to get greedy and annex and invade. They’ve also lost all the hybrid warfare opportunities among e.g. the Russian minorities in the Baltic countries.

    And maybe you should read more primary sources instead of random Anglo press articles. Or read the articles, for that matter, things like

    Lviv’s language war was ignited by the death of a popular local folk-singer, Igor Bilozir. At an outdoor cafe one evening in May, he and a friend were playing his Ukrainian ballads while a group of Russian youths at the next table were singing songs in Russian.

    The Russians warned Bilozir to stop singing in Ukrainian. He refused. They came to blows. The fighting spilled along the street and the 45-year-old slumped to the ground after a blow to the head. He died three weeks later in hospital, becoming for Ukrainian nationalists an instant martyr.

    “He was killed because he sang songs in his own language,” says Mr Parubi. Russian newspapers turned things around and said the dispute was over the right to use the Russian language.

    which isn’t exactly playing into your narrative.

    Didn’t you, just some comments ago, talk about talking to actual people? I have three Ukrainian families living in neighbouring flats, having fled the war. One of them ethnically Russian, though the kids are refusing to speak the language.

    Yes, there had been grievances. Grievances so bad it justifies an invasion? Hell no, not just not the same ballpark, but not even the same galaxy. Moscow, OTOH, is checking all five points (one would suffice!) of the definition of genocide. It doesn’t surprise me, or their parents, in any way whatsoever that the kids are refusing to speak Russian, they’ve seen shit.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Remember how that law never went into effect and in fact regions have the right to have secondary official languages? Including Russian?

    Also, that it wasn’t a law furnishing new modes of repression but a law repealing the granting of rights to minority languages?

    I know what it was. The point here is not what it was but that it existed, what it did, and what environment it existed in.

    At every point up until now I’ve been told that this didn’t happen, just moments ago you called it a hallucination, and now you’re seamlessly transitioning as if that wasn’t the case.

    And maybe you should read more primary sources instead of random Anglo press articles.

    If I had linked to Russian language content we both know exactly what you would have said in response. This conversation has proceeded along the lines of “deny, obfuscate, admit but deny significance.” If I had given you a primary source, which would have had to be in the Russian language, then you’d have called it russian propaganda.

    The only thing I ever said was that the entire reason this separatism kicked off was because of the language law introduced by the fascists in the maidan coup/revolution. I am absolutely correct about that. Had that event not happened we wouldn’t be where we are today.

    Grievances so bad it justifies an invasion?

    I’ve never said that. I’m really not that interested in talking about the invasion itself anymore as it doesn’t help us end the war. I would prefer nobody were ever invaded, but that’s not the situation we have right now.

    barsoap ,

    At every point up until now I’ve been told that this didn’t happen,

    You were told that “outlawing Russian” didn’t happen. Which the 2014 thing didn’t even attempt to do. The only people claiming such things are characters like the Nazi you quoted as well as Vatniks.

    If I had given you a primary source, which would have had to be in the Russian language, then you’d have called it russian propaganda.

    Depends on where it’s from, Russia doesn’t have a monopoly on the language and before the invasion press freedom wasn’t completely dead in Russia. Still, finding sensible takes even among the Russian opposition would be difficult as liberal forces within Russia never really bothered to analyse Russian imperialism, being busy with battling corruption and authoritarianism. Random high-profile example: Navalny’s take on Crimea.

    the language law introduced by the fascists in the maidan coup/revolution.

    There were Nazis among the protestors, yes, but they were a tiny minority. The protests started over Viktor Yanukovych betraying an election promise of his: EU accession talks. They then quickly became quite bloody with Yanukovic sending snipers and passing this kind of shit.

    When the government is shooting at you you don’t tend to question the deeper ideological stances of at least half-way decently organised people handing out riot shields to duck behind. Not really an opportune moment.

    After Yanukovych’s impeachment (which was a bit iffy the Rada played fast+loose with procedure but they had the authority and the votes) an interim president and government was installed (by that very Rada, not protestors) and him fleeing to his masters in the Moscow, the law happened (or rather didn’t), then came new elections, both presidential and for the Rada, where right-wing parties of all ilk lost quite a number of votes. Oh, also, Russia invaded Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk. There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen, and all that.

    That “Separatism”, as in the founding of the “people’s republics” was kicked off by Russian green men collaborating with local criminals. Doing it like that isn’t too surprising Russia is practically a mafia state. Just because one happened after the other doesn’t mean that one is the cause for the other.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Navalny’s take on Crimea.

    I couldn’t care less what this fascist’s take is, and I find it really sus that you admonished me on the mistake with whoever that golden dawn guy was but then refer to a fascist yourself while calling him a liberal.

    There were Nazis among the protestors, yes, but they were a tiny minority. The protests started over Viktor Yanukovych betraying an election promise of his: EU accession talks. They then quickly became quite bloody with Yanukovic sending snipers and passing this kind of shit.

    When the government is shooting at you you don’t tend to question the deeper ideological stances of at least half-way decently organised people handing out riot shields to duck behind. Not really an opportune moment.

    A small group that functioned as a vanguard. And played the pivotal role in its success. This has been written about quite a lot. I assume you’re familiar with vanguardism I’ve seen you use enough terms here to think you’re a little above average in understanding of political ideologies.

    The sniper thing is rather disputed, at least by my socialist friends in crimea. They claim this was performed by the right sector fascists. What the truth is of it though I’m not really sure, the research I’m familiar with seems rather inconclusive. Personally I think the picture is that there were probably both fascist and government shooters involved.

    mronline.org/…/the-maidan-massacre-in-ukraine/

    researchgate.net/…/266855828_The_Snipers'_Massacr…

    After Yanukovych’s impeachment (which was a bit iffy the Rada played fast+loose with procedure but they had the authority and the votes) an interim president and government was installed (by that very Rada, not protestors) and him fleeing to his masters in the Moscow, the law happened (or rather didn’t), then came new elections, both presidential and for the Rada, where right-wing parties of all ilk lost quite a number of votes. Oh, also, Russia invaded Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk. There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen, and all that.

    “Procedure” is whatever people will popularly accept in an event like this. You get to make it up as you go along and as long as the various factions willing to do violence will agree with it you’re good.

    That “Separatism”, as in the founding of the “people’s republics” was kicked off by Russian green men collaborating with local criminals.

    There’s some fuckery involved with Russia certainly but it’s not as simple as that. Some of it was a communist effort. I don’t know if it was you earlier in this thread but I did mention earlier that I have friends there that aren’t around anymore. Several communists that were involved were killed, either in mysterious circumstances or going missing. The communist party of the dpr also endorsed Alexander Zakharchenkov as he was ideologically beneficial to their goals but he was killed in a cafe bombing and pro-Russia leadership (Strelkov) conveniently took over. Ukraine was blamed for that bombing but I am personally convinced it was Russia that did it to align the balance of power in the emerging states with themselves. Infighting in the party (along with the murders and disappearances) then later led to its merger with the CPRF which further convinces me that they were involved in eliminating the various groups that sought independent interests.

    barsoap , (edited )

    I couldn’t care less what this fascist’s take is, and I find it really sus that you admonished me on the mistake with whoever that golden dawn guy was but then refer to a fascist yourself while calling him a liberal.

    You know where those “fascist” accusations come from? Precisely that kind of stuff, “X belongs to Russia”. Anyhow I cited him as an example of the opposition FFS, not because I share those kinds of view which should’ve been obvious. As to “liberal”: That’s exactly what he’s classed as in Russia. After the 2022 invasion portions of the opposition did start to reflect on imperialism in a more thorough manner than “doing things by force bad but actually yes Ukraine is Russia” but with the current state of things, well, prison, keeping their head down, or in exile. Not to mention that opposition is not exactly a majority position the majority position is “I don’t care about politics that’s a thing for politicians I just want to have a job and a Dacha”. Utter depoliticisation. Fatalism runs deep in Russia.

    “Procedure” is whatever people will popularly accept in an event like this. You get to make it up as you go along and as long as the various factions willing to do violence will agree with it you’re good.

    Well, point being that they didn’t have to make it up but an ordinary impeachment procedure would’ve taken a while. In any case any iffiness resulting from that, questions about constitutionality etc. were made up for by elections not soon after. Also, Yanukovych already had fled, the office of president was de facto without incumbent.

    Yet you referred to the whole thing as a “coup/revolution”. It was, big picture and the result, neither of those two but the people not liking that the government they elected reneged on promises and then had themselves new elections for a new government: Neither did suddenly the military reign (coup), nor did the country get a complete make-over, new constitution etc. (revolution), it was a, well, let’s call it a special electoral operation. In more established democracies those things happen more smoothly and without violence, but early elections aren’t exactly a particularly rare thing. Yanukovych probably assumed his handlers would send him backup just as they had in Belarus.

    Yanukovych’s protest law btw was much iffier when it comes to constitutionality as the Rada didn’t actually have the votes to pass it. Also, shit only really hit the fan once he doubled down like that.

    Some of it was a communist effort.

    Yeah I know but they’re irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Communists of the type you refer to exist all over Europe, they’re tiny, cultist, splinter factions. Well-organised but without the manpower to do anything, least of all stage a revolution. Do I need to remind you that “done by people calling themselves communist” doesn’t imply “popular support”, which you were insinuating. In this situation they were useful idiots for the FSB.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Communists of the type you refer to exist all over Europe, they’re tiny, cultist, splinter factions.

    This is not true in France, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Norway or Austria where communists have significant presence in governance and rapidly rising support. I agree with you that we’re struggling elsewhere on the continent, for the most part. I think the generalisation is unfair given these aren’t exactly unimportant countries. Are you American? This topic is much more interesting and would be way less hostile than it has been up to now between us.

    barsoap ,

    Not those kinds of communists. GUE/NGL parties range in self-identification from communist to democratic socialist and are indeed quite large and established, even if they don’t have huge electoral successes in many countries. S&D is generally way more popular, socdems of various intensities. GUE/NGL is proportionally strongest in Greece, Cyprus, Portugal and Ireland (at least by EU election results I can’t be arsed to go through national ones). They’re not the kind of party who would stage a coup and then falsify elections.

    The splinter groups I was talking about are the like of the German MLDP who get less than 0.1%, compared to Die Linke which isn’t unaccustomed to double-digit results. Best MLDP result ever was 0.4% in the 2006 Sachsen-Anhalt state elections. Which, of course, fits into their ideology, they believe that capitalism can only be overcome by a revolution and its vanguard. You know the type, in fact I think you’re deeply familiar with it. Occasionally they manage to get a seat on the municipal level. They don’t have a group in the European Parliament because they don’t get in.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    GUE/NGL

    I’m not actually referring to this bunch, although they’re certainly one you could. I am referring mainly to national results. I think however that your measurement comes from “election results” whereas this is misleading with regards to communist activities in any given country. Take france for example where you could measure the activity of communists by the results of the PCF. This however is not the sum of communist activity or strategy in the country. The vast majority of Melenchon supporters would be communists if the soft option did not exist. Most of us are revolutionaries in one breath and democratic socialists in another. It entirely depends on the circumstances. I live in Britain, I firmly believe revolution is the only path to socialism, does that mean I’m a revolutionary in the british conditions though? Fuck no it doesn’t there is no chance of a revolution right now. Thus my activity takes place through other channels and work, in the trade union movement and in electoral groups.

    The splinter groups I was talking about are the like of the German MLDP who get less than 0.1%, compared to Die Linke which isn’t unaccustomed to double-digit results. Best MLDP result ever was 0.4% in the 2006 Sachsen-Anhalt state elections.

    Germany is a huge problem right now there is a massive swing rightwards occurring. The socdem to fascist pipeline was in full swing in the recent election. You’re correct that the left has collapsed there. I do caution against over using electoral results as a measure of communist activities though, none of us believe in electoralism as a pathway to socialism so activity in the electoral system is more about recruitment, spreading socialist education and generally used as a sort of thermometer for the trend of things.

    barsoap ,

    Most of us are revolutionaries in one breath and democratic socialists in another.

    Oh I don’t doubt it. The thing is: The ilk I was referring to don’t do democratic socialism even when living in democracies. They may not boycott elections but they’re not really trying to win them, either, the motivation just isn’t there because they don’t believe it could achieve anything.

    Germany is a huge problem right now there is a massive swing rightwards occurring.

    2/3rd of AfD voters don’t agree with the party platform. And not just in the “haven’t read it” sense but right-out “yeah I don’t like them this is a protest vote fuck all those Wessis in Berlin” type of deal. And the east being full of open Nazis isn’t exactly new, neither is them infiltrating civil society there the trouble is, and was, since the 90s, that the GDR had no civil society to speak of because politics was something the party did. What we see right now is a combination of protest voters having tried all other parties and are now left with the AfD (and still don’t get that if they want a party that shares their ideas, they should bloody fund one) and of the far-right getting bold (which will likely mean they’ll overplay their hand), all in enabling circumstances that have been in place for at least a decade. Oh, Russian disinfo whipping the conspiracy crowd right from “corona dictatorship” into “climate dictatorship”. We didn’t have that for long that’s relatively new.

    The percentage of people with a closed right-extremist world view is actually larger in the west than in the east, yet election results are the exact opposite. Open Nazism is rarer in the west because Antifa, while not necessarily larger, has a way easier time drawing upon wider civil society so the Nazis keep their head down. There’s xenophobia and feelings of disenfranchisement in the east, the AfD plays into it, and if Wagenknecht ever gets around to actually founding her party she’ll scoop those votes straight up. “Unemployed before refugees” and “trans rights are human rights but fuck neopronouns” is by and large about as far as you need to go to calm those waters, a thing Die Linke never managed to do. Oh, and having selective expropriation of means of production in the programme won’t hurt. Going all-out would not be popular but targeted initiatives, completely different matter.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    I don’t think it matters if 2 thirds of them don’t support the whole platform. What matters is simply that they supported them. It doesn’t matter that people here in Britain don’t support the whole platform of the tories, they still supported them on Brexit, enabling them to go ahead with the entire rest of their platform.

    The percentage of people with a closed right-extremist world view is actually larger in the west than in the east, yet election results are the exact opposite. Open Nazism is rarer in the west because Antifa, while not necessarily larger, has a way easier time drawing upon wider civil society so the Nazis keep their head down. There’s xenophobia and feelings of disenfranchisement in the east, the AfD plays into it, and if Wagenknecht ever gets around to actually founding her party she’ll scoop those votes straight up.

    I’m not that familiar with Wagenknecht, is she what happens when the strasserite types of morons understand that nazis are bad but couldn’t explain to you why?

    “Unemployed before refugees” and “trans rights are human rights but fuck neopronouns” is by and large about as far as you need to go to calm those waters, a thing Die Linke never managed to do.

    A good thing. Neopronouns are fine and good. People don’t understand them but that’s ok, eventually they will, assuming the right don’t manage to kill everyone first.

    but targeted initiatives, completely different matter.

    This was the landlords expropriation shit right? Did it ever actually get implemented or did it get snatched out from under the people through other means? I am betting on the latter.

    barsoap ,

    I’m not that familiar with Wagenknecht, is she what happens when the strasserite types of morons understand that nazis are bad but couldn’t explain to you why?

    Strasserite fuck no, she’s a card-carrying communist, always has been, joined Die Linke when it was still the SED. Masters in… philosophy, I guess, on Marx’ interpretation of Hegel. PhD in macroeconomics. If the GDR hadn’t fallen she’d probably sit in the central committee. Ceased to do Stalin apologia in the 90s, still does Russia apologia and has rather unhelpful Ukraine takes (“let’s just all stop shooting”, “ceasefire now”). Against a vaccine mandate but that only ever has been debated about in the abstract, anyway, definitely not a denier. Where she really breaks with the rest of Die Linke is the stuff I alluded to (with a bit of populist spin as she’d then also be bound to do it in her new party): The main beef she has with her party is over, as she puts it, Die Linke forgetting to advocate for the broad masses and instead fixating on (however justified) minority issues. See that as you will it’s certainly the exact perception people in the east have of the party.

    A good thing. Neopronouns are fine and good. People don’t understand them but that’s ok, eventually they will, assuming the right don’t manage to kill everyone first.

    I’m drawing the line at having a neutral pronoun anyone can use. I don’t mind one bit if some enthusiasts want to go all-out and have as many pronouns in a group as there are people but don’t expect me to keep track of all that I can barely remember names (faces and characters and histories, no issue, but names just don’t stick). It’s bad enough that Indo-European languages have gender-afflicted noun classes it’s a better idea to just get rid of them (or at least class distinctions between different groups of people^1^) than to explode the number of classes.

    Or, to put it with Zizek: Why LGBTQ+ can’t we just all be +.

    This was the landlords expropriation shit right? Did it ever actually get implemented or did it get snatched out from under the people through other means? I am betting on the latter.

    Oh no it went through. Berlin’s government is currently dragging its feet (CDU/SPD, both opposed the referendum) but they have to implement it.

    ^1^ Pun not intended but I’ll take it

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    The main beef she has with her party is over, as she puts it, Die Linke forgetting to advocate for the broad masses and instead fixating on (however justified) minority issues. See that as you will it’s certainly the exact perception people in the east have of the party.

    This is the kind of stuff I’m alluding to. Maybe not strasserite, maybe nazbol-ey. Either way it’s not communist. There’s a significant segment of communists who have fallen rightwards through anti-idpol bollocks failing to understanding marxist intersectionality. They’ve mistakenly decided it all needs to be rejected for popular support rather than re-educating the population into recognising the intersectionality is a requirement for the broader masses to succeed, we simply don’t have the numbers otherwise in the new cosmopolitan societies that were constructed after nation-states ended and got built into the multicultural multi-racial cosmopolitan societies they are today.

    I’m drawing the line at having a neutral pronoun anyone can use. I don’t mind one bit if some enthusiasts want to go all-out and have as many pronouns in a group as there are people but don’t expect me to keep track of all that I can barely remember names (faces and characters and histories, no issue, but names just don’t stick). It’s bad enough that Indo-European languages have gender-afflicted noun classes it’s a better idea to just get rid of them (or at least class distinctions between different groups of people1) than to explode the number of classes.

    I don’t think anyone wants you to keep tracks, just to acknowledge and respect it. It’s not really something that lgbt people came up with either, it has existed prior to the modern day and I’m willing to bet there’s at least one isolated group out there somewhere using some unusual shit. At the end of the day it’s just a way to describe their gender when “man” or “woman” doesn’t work for them. It’s pretty harmless and seems to particularly resonate with people that aren’t neurotypical so ehhhhhh it’s fine. Power to them really. I’m glad they’re happy. I don’t have neopronouns but it doesn’t affect me so you know.

    Or, to put it with Zizek: Why LGBTQ+ can’t we just all be +.

    I couldn’t care less what this socdem lib thinks. He was losing my attention with his rape obsession for years but he completely lost my attention when he started writing for the cia outlets like Radio Free. He’s not getting away with ignorance he knows what’s up.

    Oh no it went through. Berlin’s government is currently dragging its feet (CDU/SPD, both opposed the referendum) but they have to implement it.

    When? Is there a timeline? If they’re dragging their feet they’re just looking for the circumstances necessary to drop it. When I saw this happen my immediate thought was “they’ll never ever implement that”. If they ever do I will be incredibly surprised.

    barsoap ,

    marxist intersectionality.

    …what? Intersectionality is like a late 80s concept.

    They’ve mistakenly decided it all needs to be rejected for popular support rather than re-educating the population into recognising the intersectionality is a requirement for the broader masses to succeed,

    How do you re-educate when the masses think you’re not interested in their success? How do you get people interested in other people’s issues if they think you’re shafting them?

    There’s been a massive erosion of the social systems over here roughly starting in 2000 with Schröder, New Labour type of stuff, right after Kohl pushed through his neolib privatisation agenda, victims of which were among other things the complete industry of the GDR – factories were sold for pennies to western competition who then shut stuff down. It’s a double whammy.

    Whereas back in the GDR you were not able to open your mouth without the Stasi taking notes and not able to run your mouth without the Stasi picking you off the street, if you didn’t you were guaranteed to be able to get a job, fund a family, have some vacations etc. economically the situation wasn’t great but you didn’t need to worry about falling through any cracks (as long as you kept your mouth shut). The GDR had no Lumpenproletariat. It’s the exact opposite right now. And people in the east are, rightly, blaming politicians for it. And now Die Linke appears to them to worry more about neopronouns than being demsocs or even socdems.

    Sure you can do both, caring about one doesn’t really affect caring about the other – but you also have to avoid the above perception. Most of all, if you make progress in one area but not the other you might have to tone down those successes lest the perception be that you only fight for one.

    As to the numbers game: For a majority you’ll need the masses. No two ways about it. A minority politics focus might win you activists, but not elections.

    and seems to particularly resonate with people that aren’t neurotypical so ehhhhhh it’s fine.

    Not the schizo spectrum that’s for sure, trust me, I’d know. Autism spectrum, sure, when it comes to subjectivity they’re hyper-normies. Now I don’t mind y’all having prescriptive identities but you don’t have to be muppets about it.

    I couldn’t care less what this socdem lib thinks.

    I mean… you don’t have to to consider the point? Ok, here’s what Rosa Luxemburg said: Why LGBTQ+, why not just +?

    When? Is there a timeline? If they’re dragging their feet they’re just looking for the circumstances necessary to drop it. When I saw this happen my immediate thought was “they’ll never ever implement that”. If they ever do I will be incredibly surprised.

    Dragging their feet among other things included “we need studies, we need a framework law first, and we have to make sure that it’s even compatible with Berlin’s constitution” (the Berlin constitution, unlike the federal one, wasn’t explicitly written to be compatible with state capitalism, but in any case the federal one takes precedence), so they tasked an expert commission with figuring all that out. Said commission just recently reached its final verdict: No framework law needed, yep of course it’s constitutional, it’s probably even going to be cheap.

    The government is constitutionally required to implement it, the referendum was legally binding. The rest is a matter of rule of law. If they refuse… well courts can hold them in contempt but that’s not going to do much. But it would cost them the next elections, or probably rather cause early elections because the SPD wouldn’t want to dig their heels in over this one. Or there can be another referendum, this time of the “this exact law shall now be in force” kind, not the “the senate shall legislate on this matter” one.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    …what? Intersectionality is like a late 80s concept.

    A third wave concept yes. The only issue with the liberal conception of it is that it does not include class as one of its methods of analysis. The intersection between a black trans woman creates different conditions to that of a white trans woman, but without class it creates an incomplete analysis. Class explains the difference in experience that creates for example the right wing trans bourgeoisie, who ultimately are insulated from the conditions that a poor working class trans person experiences and thus they politically lean towards protecting their class status even if it means supporting people who are hurting trans people. Marxist intersectionality simply adds in class to complete the picture and analyse groups correctly.

    As to the numbers game: For a majority you’ll need the masses. No two ways about it. A minority politics focus might win you activists, but not elections.

    It’s a balancing act. Protecting the marginalised while also connecting the dots between class issues and their issues. The issue is that people go too far one way or the other, the groups that want to never defend the marginalised groups for fear of the outcome simply become reactionaries themselves. Although a controversial figure Stalin’s quote on antisemitism leading the working class into the jungle is just as relevant to all the various minority groups today.

    I mean… you don’t have to to consider the point? Ok, here’s what Rosa Luxemburg said: Why LGBTQ+, why not just +?

    Because it’s not about him. It’s about the LGBTQ+ people. This attitude reeks of the same “why can’t you just like be a little less this and a little more that”, which is something the various phobes and bigots (whether they realise it or not) have consistently levelled at lgbt people over the decades. They decide what they are, and how they like to present their community and identity. Zizek doing this shit just demonstrates he fundamentally doesn’t give a fuck about us, and that he would only like to make these groups politically more convenient for himself. On top of that there is the other issue, that lgbt people have for decades now had to exist in a “fuck you, we exist in public and that’s your problem not ours” attitude to public life and existence, attempts to make them adjust how they exist in public life are always going to be viewed as attacks when that is the cultural background of the community defending itself and its right to exist. That’s what “pride” is, a big fuck you we exist we’re proud of that and visible. Having people come in from outside and try to tell them to do it differently is… Not good. It’s out of touch. It shows he’s never really engaged properly in order to understand this group, how it got to where it is, why it defends itself so aggressively, etc etc.

    Dragging their feet among other things included “we need studies, we need a framework law first, and we have to make sure that it’s even compatible with Berlin’s constitution” (the Berlin constitution, unlike the federal one, wasn’t explicitly written to be compatible with state capitalism, but in any case the federal one takes precedence), so they tasked an expert commission with figuring all that out. Said commission just recently reached its final verdict: No framework law needed, yep of course it’s constitutional, it’s probably even going to be cheap.

    The government is constitutionally required to implement it, the referendum was legally binding. The rest is a matter of rule of law. If they refuse… well courts can hold them in contempt but that’s not going to do much. But it would cost them the next elections, or probably rather cause early elections because the SPD wouldn’t want to dig their heels in over this one. Or there can be another referendum, this time of the “this exact law shall now be in force” kind, not the “the senate shall legislate on this matter” one.

    I think they’ll take the election hit over implementing it. But we’ll see.

    What happens after that? Who has the teeth to force its implementation? Anyone at all? Or can the courts do nothing more than “we find you in contempt” ? What actual repercussions does that have other than electoral? The bougies can play the electoral game and come out on top forever if there is no real way to force any of these parties into implementing it when they don’t want to do it. They could fuck around for years, and then throw it out in some crisis saying “it’s no longer viable because [excuse here]”. “It’s been too long”, “we have war now the conditions are different”, “there’s a famine from climate change occurring now”, “we have a water crisis”, “the war with china”. I can think of so many things that are just around the corner that could be used as excuses. As long as the ““punishment”” is only in the ballot box they could feasibly fuck around forever, if no alternative mechanisms of forcing it through exist.

    barsoap ,

    That’s what “pride” is, a big fuck you we exist we’re proud of that and visible.

    See the issue is you all look like humans to me. You can slice humanity up in any number of ways and can say “fuck you we exist” for a gazillion of characteristics or combinations thereof, one is ultimately as meaningless as the other. Individual people having identities, sure, that’s perfectly warranted they’re autonomous agents with their own properties but group identities? All you’re doing there is prescribing behaviours to each other, denying both individualism and universalism.

    Now you might not perceive it like that because all your perception is soaked to one half in “It is me who is perceiving this”, i.e. the presence of a subject, and that subject gets all warm and fuzzy if there’s others sharing a sufficiently close subjectivity giving you reason to immediately and unthinkingly compromise your own individuality but objectively, yep, prescribing behaviours to each other is what you’re doing. It just so happens that you like it that way.

    (It then shouldn’t come as a surprise that there’s no such thing as a schizophrenia-spectrum idpol movement. It’d be like cats trying to herd cats. We rather prefer to confuse the fuck out of each other when we meet by chance)

    Also, not everyone wants to be visible, which is why I’m e.g. critical of establishing a cultural norm of having people state their pronouns when giving talks and whatnot. You have fluid people that are then forced to lock themselves into an identity which might change from making their slides to giving their talk to mingling after, you have people who’d rather be publicly closeted about being trans and force them to choose between outing themselves and publicly lying about themselves.

    The whole thing would be easier if language wouldn’t force us to choose a gender. There’s plenty of language in which that’s worse than in English, e.g. in Russian you can’t talk about yourself in the past without choosing between male and female, but there’s also plenty of language (but AFAIK not a single Indo-European one) in which it’s possible to talk for ages about someone without once implying their gender, and that’s the natural, idiomatic way to do things. As such: Why not get rid of he and she, everyone’s a they? (which is what I actually meant the “everyone’s a +” thing is merely structurally similar, but ultimately a different topic).

    As to visibility: That’s what the marches are for. What matters there is that a kid from a small village, completely alone in being member of a sexual minority and thus having issues finding connection and advise, can see that they’re not alone. It allows both the kid and the rest of the village to say “yep that kid might be a rare breed, but nonetheless it’s nothing out of the ordinary”.

    Who has the teeth to force its implementation?

    If the government ignores courts then we’re in a full-on constitutional crisis. Which wouldn’t be unprecedented, mind you. Technically, then, Article 20 (4) applies:

    All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available.

    and that’s what the RAF argued, and also what the Last Generation tends to argue, having an even stronger case than the RAF: In particular, there’s already federal court judgements declaring that the government is ignoring its own climate laws, laws parliament was required to pass on order of the constitutional court. But using that as defence in criminal court has never, ever, worked. 20 years after, though, when perceptions have shifted it gives you the right to say “told you so” so there’s that and it might very well play into parole hearings.

    The courts, even if they de jure have the power (e.g. judgements of the constitutional court are immediately applicable law) tend to shy away from using it when they’re of the opinion that parliament is the one who should do it – that’s a general thing, not specific to this situation. They issue “this half-sentence of the law shall not be applied until parliament comes up with a sane version of the law” type of orders. But that’s because they’re balancing their own powers, cognisant that they while judging in the name of the people, they’re, well, unelected technocrats. But then the Berlin expropriation thing isn’t an ordinary situation, the whole thing does already have democratic justification because it was a referendum, courts wouldn’t be interfering in the process of formation of the political will of the people in this instance: They don’t have to defer to parliament to not hurt democracy. As such it would kinda be a first but constitutional courts might just enact a full-on law directly and I have little doubt that the administration would apply it.

    I mean it’s not that Mao wasn’t ultimately right about politics and cannons, however, not even the FDP would start a civil war over a couple of apartments.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    I have another interesting tidbit on the snipers thing:

    archive.is/cjHkh

    This is an interesting article from the BBC going into the many sus things about this event and painting the picture that the far right was likely involved. One of the most interesting things about it is that the bbc has deleted it, which is the first instance of sussy journalistic war censorship I’ve seen. The original no longer exists.

    barsoap ,

    It could also be that they took it down because it’s all a collection of people saying different unprovable things.

    What’s for sure is that it was Berkut who sniped protesters, plenty of matched bullets to prove that one, they also are – or rather were – the exact kind of bastard cops to do such things, the whole organisation got dissolved in 2014 due to their brutality (not just sniping) during the protests.

    Who started what and exactly who shot or tortured whom where and so on we’ll probably never now, at least not better than we know now (there’s been court cases). I also don’t doubt that Berkut caught some bullets, Ukrainians aren’t the kind of people who cower and retreat when being shot at. Russian special ops or Right sector escalating the situation or, heck, why not a Berkut Agent Provocateur. It’s pointless, we’ll probably never know. Well the Russians might still have written documentation about orders or something but on the Ukrainian side all available evidence has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb, nothing more to get there.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    The issue here is that with the ukrainian side taking the “there was no gunshots from any maidan protester buildings” position it eliminates all trust. Folks in crimea don’t trust anything they say they’ll do now or in future because they see them as lying about core narratives that led up to this situation. Meanwhile you have research papers in american universities saying things like:

    This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings.

    barsoap ,

    This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation,

    Directly contradicting forensic evidence. Those were Berkut bullets in protestor’s bodies. Unless you’re saying that Berkut gave (and then collected) weapons to Right Sector etc at which point yes it would’ve been a false flag but not one that would exonerate the bastards.

    The issue here is that with the ukrainian side taking the “there was no gunshots from any maidan protester buildings” position it eliminates all trust.

    Where are you hearing that kind of stuff. Also who else but protestors is supposed to have shot Berkut cops dead, the question if at all is who started it.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    I don’t know man but shit doesn’t add up.

    Where are you hearing that kind of stuff

    Friends. I told you I personally know people in the region through various connections. I spent 2 weeks in Crimea myself in 2009, which is obviously not a lot of time but I have some comrades I personally know there. I had some in Ukraine too but I’ve lost contact with everyone and have no idea if they’re dead, rounded up by the conscription gangs and forced to go to combat, or arrested by SBU.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Of course. Because that’s totally not something the FSB would do to sniff out partisans and shit. There’s a war going on in case you haven’t noticed and truth is always its first victim.

    This is just closed mindedness. You refuse to take on any new information, you have made up your mind what the situation is and utterly refuse to even consider listening to anyone with first hand experience.

    Neither was there prosecution nor was the Russian language banned. The Ukrainian army largely operates in Russian, FFS.

    No. This is just factually incorrect. The flashpoint that started the separatism was the repeal of the language laws that made Russian (and many others) one of the many state languages in these regions (majority russian ethnicity regions). This occurred in 2014 immediately following the Maidan coup/revolution.

    This law change by the new far right bandera supporting government was the final straw in a long line of things that had led up to it, and was what created popular support for violent separatism among the local populations. Many people saw it as existentially important to separate themselves from Ukraine as they believed the Bandera supporters sought to kill or deport them all.

    barsoap ,

    The flashpoint that started the separatism was the repeal of the language laws that made Russian (and many others) one of the many state languages in these regions (majority russian ethnicity regions).

    What you’re citing there is a question to the Commission, not a research paper. The guy posing that question? A Greek Nazi, becoming MEP on a Golden Dawn ticket. Here’s the answer:

    The Commission is not aware of any ban on use of minority languages in Ukraine. In February 2014, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a law, revoking the language policy law of 2012, which has however been effectively vetoed by the then Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov, and therefore has not entered into force.

    The law adopted in 2012, giving the local and regional authorities the right to determine regional languages in addition to Ukrainian for contacts with public bodies, has been largely positively assessed by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe in its opinion. At the same time, the opinion noted: ‘the question remains whether, having regard to the specific situation in Ukraine, there are sufficient guarantees, in the current Draft Law, for the consolidation of the Ukrainian language as the sole State language, and of the role it has to play in the Ukrainian multilinguistic society.’

    Yes, the Ukrainian government has been actively trying to make Ukrainian the de facto, not just de jure, lingua franca of Ukraine, to halt secondary effects of Russification.

    I’m not even going to address anything else you said. A Tankie relying on hallucinations of a Nazi to make points, how fucking classic.

    Learn some research skills and source criticism and then maybe you’ll be able to contribute to discussions.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    What you’re citing there is a question to the Commission, not a research paper. The guy posing that question? A Greek Nazi, becoming MEP on a Golden Dawn ticket. Here’s the answer:

    Yeah this was just pointed out to me. Which is why I went and dug out some other stuff instead, I’m not particularly fond of relying on that one and won’t be using it in future.

    A couple of western media articles discussing the split the existing language law was causing in the country:

    2000: Ukraine wages war on Russian language

    2012: Russian language debate splits Ukraine

    2012: Ukrainians(far right) protest against Russian language law

    2014(when the law actually occurred): Ukraine Revokes Linguistic Rights

    This last one is the most interesting, also 2014 from Time: Many Ukrainians Want Russia To Invade

    Within two days of taking power, the revolutionary leaders passed a bill revoking the rights of Ukraine’s regions to make Russian an official language alongside Ukrainian. That outraged the Russian-speaking half of the country, and the ban was quickly lifted. But the damage was done. With that one ill-considered piece of legislation, the new leaders had convinced millions of ethnic Russians that a wave of repression awaited them. So it was no surprise on Friday when a livid mob in Crimea attacked a liberal lawmaker who came to reason with them. Struggling to make his case over the screaming throng, Petro Poroshenko was chased back to his car amid cries of “fascist!”

    Is this article a hallucination too? This aggressive response is quite unnecessary. Have a more academic conversation.

    barsoap ,

    Yeah this was just pointed out to me.

    By me I just couldn’t let it stand so I called it out twice, but there’s no need to duplicate the whole thread.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Oh lol we’re having the same conversation twice? I didn’t even notice I often don’t look at usernames. Sorry.

    atzanteol ,

    There is a loooong road from “has political turmoil” to “wants to be part of Russia.”

    Florida has political turmoil. Doesn’t mean they want to be part of Spain because some people there speak Spanish.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Sure. But I assure you that when russian ethnicity people read twitter and see nafo and other morons (like half this comment section) saying all russians should die blah blah blah it only ends up pushing them to russia for safety. Even Navalny’s people who I despise say this:

    https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4087248c-e61a-43b5-a754-8cf59d2907b5.png

    Like, what do you people expect the russians in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk to think exactly when they read half the shit they’ve seen from libs on Twitter, reddit, etc etc who have all behaved indistinguishably from fascists in their bloodthirsty calls for russian blood? They see it as attacks on themselves, not the russian army, not putin, they see it as ethnic threats and it has pushed fencesitting russians with family in both ukraine and russia (about half are mixed families) over to the russian side because they just don’t feel the west can be trusted. They see them as wanting all russians dead, which you can hardly blame them for with all the behaviour you’ve surely seen online.

    atzanteol ,

    People are mean on the Internet? People are also mad at Russia because they’ve invaded a neighbor. People were calling out “death to America” for invading Iraq. It’s how the world works.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Sure. But the point is that all those ethnic russians in all three of these regions, who are the majority of the population and were the majority before 2014 by a large margin, all have been pushed to russia because of it.

    The political reality in these regions is that while before there were some mixed views on the issue, particularly among those with mixed families, now there are almost none among the majority russian ethnic population. Which is something of a problem if you consider yourself to believe in democratic outcomes.

    atzanteol ,

    Good for them. They can move to Russia.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    And how do you intend to make that happen?

    atzanteol ,

    Do I intend, to go to Crimea, and forcibly relocate people? No. I have plans this weekend.

    atzanteol ,

    They can go to Russia. They don’t have to.

    What the fuck is your argument here? It seems to be “since some people kinda like Russia therefore Russia invading Ukraine is somehow okay”.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    I’m not making an argument. I’m trying to illustrate the reality here.

    The majority of the population of these regions are russian ethnicity but were ukrainian citizens, born in ukraine. They used to be kinda split about the issue of separatism, but the constant endless genocidal rhetoric from liberals on the internet baying for russian blood has had the effect of making them support russia.

    This is a problem for getting the regions back, because a majority of the population does not want to come back. Solving this is a necessary component of figuring out how to bring them back. You can sign whatever you want on paper saying “these are Ukraine again now” but if the population itself does not agree then the separatist civil war will just immediately restart.

    The options available are either getting rid of them all (this is what the current far right faction of ukraine wants), or finding a way to make them want to be Ukrainian again instead of Russian. Saying things like “they can leave” doesn’t help. It sounds a lot like what the american far right says about anyone who isn’t white in america actually.

    atzanteol ,

    They used to be kinda split about the issue of separatism, but the constant endless genocidal rhetoric from liberals on the internet baying for russian blood has had the effect of making them support russia.

    Yeah - okay bud.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Because it is so hard to believe that the majority ethnicity russian regions of the country might have become more favourable to russia as a result of everyone saying all russians need to be killed! Especially with opposition groups inside russia literally saying that is what has happened, which I already linked to. “Okay bud”.

    You’re just completely disconnected from reality.

    EhList ,
    @EhList@lemmy.world avatar

    However I would like to see if we couldn’t offload FL back to Spain.

    MercuryUprising ,

    No thank you, we don’t want it anymore. No takesy backsies.

    athelard ,

    We’ll take it. The land is valuable, and the current residents will voluntarily flee to the rest of the USA, horrorified by our free healthcare.

    Franfran2424 ,

    love you mate. they are fascists. wheres moderation here?

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Ehh besides the rude ones most of this is alright. I think only 2 people were particularly rude and they got blocked so meh. Some other conversations here actually got quite interesting @barsoap seems mostly alright once we get off the topic of the war.

    Lenins2ndCat , (edited )
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Crimea is 76% russian. It was almost 70% russian before 2014 and it is around 76% russian today. Almost all of these people lived there already.

    Heresy_generator , (edited )
    @Heresy_generator@kbin.social avatar

    Russian speaking != Russian. A majority in Crimea voted for independence from Russia in 1991 and that desire for independence from Russia did not lessen between 1991 and 2014 when Russia's imperial war of conquest against Ukraine began.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Sure. But that doesn’t really change the census data much.

    This applies to Donetsk and Luhansk too. All three of these regions were ethnic majority Russian, and the separatism kicked off when the Maidan government banned the Russian language in official government usage (schools, local institutions etc).

    AnUnusualRelic ,
    @AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world avatar

    So you’re saying that Italy ought to annex New Jersey?

    BobKerman3999 ,

    Also a big chunk of New York: it will be split with Ireland

    Filthmontane ,

    A majority of Russians rose up in opposition against the Ukrainian government during the Ukrainian revolution in support of Russian annexation. You can’t just ignore that a large number of people in Crimea were onboard with annexation.

    andyburke ,
    @andyburke@kbin.social avatar

    Certainly can, and will! Nothing justifies another country just annexing that territory. Nothing. No amount of you talking will justify it. No number of people there who speak Russian justify it. There is no justification.

    Filthmontane ,

    So, you don’t care about the people or how they feel about anything? So when the people in Crimea felt they were being treated unfairly by the Ukrainian government, they should’ve just put up with it instead of standing up for themselves? With that attitude, the US would still be a British territory.

    galloog1 ,

    You would’ve sided with the whiskey producers in the whiskey rebellion.

    InverseParallax ,

    I’m going to quote this next year when Xi annexes Sakalin.

    Russia has been too large for too long, it should have been split into a dozen separate countries centuries ago.

    Packet ,
    @Packet@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Yeah man, I agree. USA should do so too. Ya know, too big of a country eh? Texas and Florida should separate and California following them as an example. Especially California, I hate California.

    InverseParallax , (edited )

    It’s funny you say that, because both California and texas each have a larger GDP than russia by themselves.

    Of course that was before the catastrophic failure of a war, now I’m sure Russia’s smaller than Florida too.

    BTW, it’s pronounced “Knee-how”, just to help you for next year.

    fidodo ,

    Then do it democratically through referendums. An illegal war is inexcusable. Claiming land is yours because there are people from your country there is textbook fascist strategy.

    Stovetop ,

    To offer an example, this was Hitler’s basis for invading and annexing the Sudetenland, part of what was then Czechoslovakia.

    absentthereaper ,
    @absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Manifest Destiny is calling; are you going to call Amerikans fascists for their living on stolen land?

    Maggoty ,

    And they just magically had Russian military uniforms and heavy equipment…

    kescusay ,
    @kescusay@lemmy.world avatar

    As others have pointed out, Crimea is not 82% Russian. The majority of the populace speaks Russian, but a shared language does not indicate a shared culture. They don’t want to be part of Russia, and were illegally invaded.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Crimea wasn’t “invaded”. Russia was already there as it leased the port and officially managed it for military use already. That’s why there was no fighting. They already ran the checkpoints, they already were the entire military presence in the region. The changeover from “this is Ukraine” to “this is Russia now” was entirely the signing of papers and changed absolutely nothing about the presence in the region or the average day to day. They certainly took it over, but to say it was invaded is somewhat misleading, more of a “we’ve decided that this is ours now”.

    kescusay ,
    @kescusay@lemmy.world avatar

    This is a gross and flagrant distortion of events in Crimea leading up to the illegal annexation. It leaves out the fact that the operation of the checkpoints was still subject to Ukrainian governmental oversight, the fact that prior to the take-over, Russia illegally brought soldiers in unmarked uniforms over the border (the “little green men”), and the fact that the “changeover” was far from violence-free, let alone just a “signing of papers.”

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    The denial of reality going on here is absurd. Pre 2014 I know they operated the checkpoints because I went to Crimea for 2 weeks in 2009. I’m not saying that there wasn’t also fuckery involved but denying the reality of events is nonsensical. There is even a vice documentary that shows just how casual the transition was. It’s extremely painful discussing these topics with people online whose only understanding of these regions comes through the lens of this war.

    kescusay ,
    @kescusay@lemmy.world avatar

    I never said Russia didn’t operate the checkpoints. But prior to 2014, Crimea was indisputably Ukrainian territory, and Russia operated security checkpoints inside Ukraine at Ukraine’s discretion.

    No one is claiming that the annexation of Crimea involved violence at the scale of the current war, but it was not non-violent, either. Characterizing it as just “signing of papers” is false.

    It’s extremely painful discussing these topics with people online whose only understanding of these regions comes through the lens of this war.

    What other lens should we look at the annexation through? It was clearly the early stages of this war.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    I’m not saying it wasn’t Ukrainian territory. I’m saying that the presence there was 100% russian military because it was functionally operated as their military port.

    This is precisely why there was no battle over it, no deaths, no nothing. Just “this is russia now” and continued operation of it as they always had but with different flags.

    What other lens should we look at the annexation through? It was clearly the early stages of this war.

    I’d much prefer a non-war lens of the place and how cool it is. Most people in america hadn’t even heard of it until the annexation, it’s very unfortunate.

    I don’t think calling it the early stages of this war is quite accurate but it’s not really that important and kinda gets into unnecessary semantics. The war probably wouldn’t be happening if the Minsk agreement had been kept. Russia were never going to let Crimea go because they needed it as a military port but they avoided Donetsk and Luhansk up until the Minsk agreement failed. If they had taken these regions in 2014 it would have been a breeze for them as Ukraine had no military to speak of, which is why the civil war was fought by the nazi volunteer batallions (azov, right sector, etc etc). Ukraine’s military was ramped up between 2014 and 2021. They did not really have much of anything until the 2016 Stategic Defense Bulletin followed by the State Program for the Development of the Armed Forces (2017-2020). In 2014 the military was only 90k active personnel with over half being civilian staff.

    kescusay ,
    @kescusay@lemmy.world avatar

    We’d all prefer a non-war lens of Crimea. You’re right, it was a cool and interesting place, and hopefully still will be when the war is over.

    But Russia has no say over whether another country’s territory will be used as Russia’s military port. The fact is, Ukraine was amenable to hosting Russia’s military there, so long as Russia didn’t try to actually own the land, but they’ve forfeited their right to use it now.

    Ultimately, Russia’s military will be ousted from Crimea along with the rest of Ukraine, and that will be that. Had they never annexed it or escalated to open warfare, they would still be operating there freely today, with a much friendlier Ukraine happily hosting them.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    I uhh. Don’t share your optimism or actually care who runs it, I only really care that the people I know there remain safe. For them and for myself the flag be waved around is somewhat meaningless compared to the human impact of all this nonsense, particularly because some of my socialist friends are gone now. With that said I don’t see Crimea changing hands again, nor does anyone I have spoken to currently in Crimea. I might change that assessment if the counteroffensive ever actually sees the first line of dragon’s teeth but so far it’s been completely underwhelming. Everyone also sees the deployment of clusterbombs as a “let’s salt the earth so it’s worthless to them” move rather than anything that will change the counteroffensive’s prospects.

    andyburke ,
    @andyburke@kbin.social avatar

    Russia chose all of this.

    No one else. Russia.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    And?

    galloog1 ,

    And so it is on Russia to leave. You bring up Russian laws like the Ukrainians are not sovereign. They gave their own laws. You know what else was legal? The Holocaust was legal under German law. That didn’t make it right. I hope you can understand that this is why people consider Russia a fascist state right now and yes, it does matter. Your arguments are textbook fascist and you should take that into serious consideration.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    You’ve missed the point. They can’t, because the law prevents it.

    Don’t mistake that for a value judgement about those laws because it’s not. I am just acknowledging the political reality, which is something you categorically have to do in order to reach a conclusion in these matters.

    You can call me a fascist all you want but the only person between the two of us that is supporting more bloodshed is you and your nationalism. I’m not a nationalist.

    galloog1 ,

    You literally don’t know what fascism is and I challenge you to define it. Then we can determine if I’ve missed the point. Fascism is always legal. It is always backed by law. It must be by definition or it seeks to be. If your society cannot stop an ethically motivated war that you started because the law prevents it, that is fascism.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Fascism is a reaction to leftist power in any given country it arises in. That’s why we call them reactionaries.

    Fascism occurs when leftist growth in a country grows to the point at which it threatens to overthrow the bourgeoisie’s ruling class power. When this threat arises the bourgeoisie fund ultranationalist elements within nations in order to build a force that can be used for ultra-violence in the pursuit of killing off the leftist threat.

    Fascism differs depending on national character. Fascism in Germany was not the same as fascism in Italy or fascism in Spain, Chile, Japan or India. But it often has certain characteristics of ultranationalism and the supremacy of certain groups, but not always. Ultimate fascism is anything that it has to be in order to get power and use ultraviolence which is why describing it in absolute terms is difficult. This is why fascism is more aptly characterised by what it is in reaction to rather than anything else.

    In short. Fascism is like the white blood cell of capitalism, it arises when the “infection” of socialists threatens to overthrow it.

    When the “infection” is over, it then ends, morphing back into regular capitalism. We can see that this occurs by looking at the countries where fascism was not defeated, where fascism won. In both Spain and Chile fascism did not become something unique from capitalism, it is a part of capitalism, and when it had eradicated the threat of socialism it was then changed by its ruling class back into neoliberalism, which is a more efficient means of wealth extraction from the population.

    galloog1 ,

    So, your definition of fascism is state power to counter the left. My definition is how the fascists define it; how you are currently defining your society. Think on that. Do some actual research into historic fascist arguments. I’m not advocating for them, I’m saying you should see some parallels.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Your definition is what? Sorry I don’t think “how the fascists define it” is a very clear definition when they all define it completely differently depending on the place.

    A definition should be universally applicable, that’s what makes something a definition. It makes something definitive. If a description of something is not universally applicable then it is not succeeding at being definitive.

    This is why those of us define fascism in terms of what it is a reaction to, it is significantly more definitive because there is not a single instance of fascism where this is untrue. There is a reason the poem starts with “First they came for the communists”.

    galloog1 ,

    The phrase starts with that but includes a lot more because fascism crops up during times of uncertainty and instability. So too does other radical ideas. The definition I put forward is a universal one. Defining an ideology as being against something else is not an ideology. It would be no better than saying that anarchists are defined as being antifascist. It simply shows you don’t understand what they believe.

    If you don’t understand what they believe, you cannot understand why it is bad. Suddenly you are justifying the invasions of sovereign countries on ethnic lines and here we are.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    You are being evasive. I already asked you to write a definition that includes all fascists.

    Defining an ideology as being against something else is not an ideology.

    It most certainly can be when that’s what it is. Fascism is not uniquely different to capitalism, it has proven that wherever it has won it just morphs back into liberalism. Its only unique characteristic is that it is capitalism with the ability to perform ultraviolence against its political enemies.

    It would be no better than saying that anarchists are defined as being antifascist. It simply shows you don’t understand what they believe.

    Not when you can define anarchists through other means. Such as the fact that they want an immediate stateless society. If you could actually define fascism through other means then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    galloog1 ,

    I have already defined fascism through other means. You just didn’t like it because it described you, which was my original assertion.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    You… Haven’t? All you’ve said is “how the fascists define it”.

    All you have to do is write it out in a sentence.

    galloog1 ,

    Fascism as a system is defined as purity of effort. It comes from the literal Italian word for a bundle of sticks. Alone they are weak. Together and united they are strong.

    The cultural element is that it favors uniformity as an element of unity. This is where the militarism comes in but it is not entirely defined by it. It also manifests itself in civic works and progress. It seeks to unify those that are similar. Here one of the key points though. Fascism is okay with the existence of other groups, just that they are not a participant in their system and seeks to bring those that are into the system.

    It aligns efforts and systems regardless of their origin towards the goals of the state. This includes corporations and state organizations. It will nationalize organizations that work against the state and ostracize groups that are not aligned with the majority. It roots out internal dissent within government as an inefficiency.

    A socialist form of system absolutely can be fascist. A fascist government does not inherently need a dictator but it is inherently authoritarian. It does not matter if the means of production are corporate, individual, or government as it is about unity of effort and uniformity as a force for progress.

    These are clearly defined parameters.

    You only see fascism come in when citizens see a lack of progress as a result of social issues. It’s not left politics that it is reacting to, it is the violence and chaos on the streets that inspires a strong reaction. People perceive the distribution as the cause of the problems that actually impact them. They literally see the destruction of their property and their neighborhoods being caused by these radicals. They see the inability of the liberal state to stop it because it allows for that dissent and disunity. Voters remember a time when people were united. Then they see these groups coming in and fighting back. They are literally cleaning up the streets and defending their neighborhoods at a ground level. They look and act like them so they trust them. They see that snowball into progress at a larger level and start to increasingly trust the approach and who they are told is causing the issues in society. They saw it for themselves and so they trust that it’s the truth that they cannot see now.

    When an outside group refuses to confirm or leave, that’s when you start getting increasingly strong forms of solutions to the perceived problem. This is where you see language around a final solution come from. You can disband organizations but people must be removed.

    It does not need to be the left. It actually could be the right. National Socialism was called what it was for a reason. It was reacting to the right in society. It started out as being for the nationalization of resources within Germany. As it gained power, it was okay with corporations as long as it worked on behalf of the state. Fascism is agnostic to socialism vs capitalism until it is working against them. Nazis are not socialists, except they are when the corporations are perceived to be working against the efforts of the majority.

    Unity of effort is a powerful and efficient thing. It does not take into account the benefits of diversity or the social benefits of dissent as a force for moderation. When you put fascism against a liberal society, the united liberal society is typically able to innovate around a united but uniform approach against them given enough time. It also wins more allies on average. Unity is typically the challenge as diverse societies have a lot of differences.

    So, why is Russia fascist now? The Russian citizens went through an extended period of change that worsened the average Russian’s life. Most remember a time when they were more united or at least felt that way. There’s outside corporations and organizations perceived to be degrading Russian life. There’s chaos on the streets and separatists everywhere and the new modern liberal society is unable to stop it. You have someone come into power that has cleaned up the streets and focused on progress. They’ve focused on defending the average Russian from these inside threats that are rotting Russia from the inside. They are saying that life was better when Russians were united. They want to get back to the way it was and bring Russians back in to the fold. There’s a focus on unity of government, corporation, and culture. There’s a systemic stamping out of dissent regardless of the source.

    Russia probably would be faring a lot better if they hadn’t been a huge gainer from the smaller states in the USSR. Only Russians were better under the USSR, not the smaller states. This is why the Holodomor is so significant. Ukrainians were less important for food than the Russians because they dissented. I would argue that the USSR was also a fascist state but it gets a lot muddier in that discussion to the point where it almost doesn’t matter.

    NukeminHerttua ,
    @NukeminHerttua@sopuli.xyz avatar

    There is an easy way to end the war: Russian withdrawal. It really is as simple as that.

    At any point in history Russian Federation had no right or business to occupy any part of Ukraine. It was up to Ukraine to decide what to do with those areas.

    While we all want the war to stop, it cannot be done at any price. Ukraine must be allowed to return the areas stolen from it and Russia must return to pre 2014 borders. Either they do it willingly or with force. No one likes it, but it’s Russia that chose to attack, not Ukraine.

    I hope your friends are safe, but at the same time I hope they have the sense to leave Crimea until things settle.

    And let’s hope for peace, but recognize that it cannot be achieved by giving into the offender’s demands.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    There is an easy way to end the war: Russian withdrawal. It really is as simple as that.

    Not physically possible under russian law.

    While we all want the war to stop, it cannot be done at any price. Ukraine must be allowed to return the areas stolen from it and Russia must return to pre 2014 borders. Either they do it willingly or with force. No one likes it, but it’s Russia that chose to attack, not Ukraine.

    Again, this is not possible under Russian law. The notion that it’ll be done with force is similarly unrealistic, nukes would fly before these were taken by force. But before that happens you’d have to see the removal of the Russian warships off the coast which will be obliterating anything that comes near Crimea. It just isn’t ever happening without a navy or an airforce.

    I hope your friends are safe, but at the same time I hope they have the sense to leave Crimea until things settle.

    They’re fine for now. It’s relatively quiet there because the defensive line is so far away, barring these bridge incidents.

    And let’s hope for peace, but recognize that it cannot be achieved by giving into the offender’s demands.

    We’d be there already if not for boris fucking johnson. I really don’t know why you care about the “offender’s demands” either. Are you a nationalist? People are what matter. I could not give a shit about what flag exists between the two, right now it’s just a situation where two extremely shit sides throw thousands of lives into a meatgrinder and all I want to see is the meatgrinder stop.

    kklusz ,

    all I want to see is the meatgrinder stop.

    Even at the cost of Ukrainian territorial integrity? That’s for the Ukrainians to decide, and so far they’re picking the meat grinder. More power to them.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Yes. I could not give a shit about “territorial integrity”. This is nationalism. I’m not a nationalist, I don’t like states especially bourgeoise states.

    You are putting nationalism ahead of people’s lives.

    That’s for the Ukrainians to decide

    No it isn’t. It’s for the Ukrainian rulers to decide. The people don’t get any choice in it, that’s the problem. And everyone that opposed this war was rounded up and arrested, every left wing party in the country was shut down, and the left wing tv channels were also shut down, all under the “they’re pro russia” excuse simply for being against the war. There is no “let the ukrainians decide” under that environment.

    NukeminHerttua ,
    @NukeminHerttua@sopuli.xyz avatar

    You really seem to enjoy crafting strawman arguments.

    • Ukraine is fighting an existential war. Boosting nationalism is a way to cope with that and survive. I hate that nationalistic shit myself, but in their situation Ukrainians are both allowed to express themselves in a nationalistic way as well as fight back. And from the viewpoint of opposing nationalism: the fact that Ukrainians are more nationalistic, was mostly caused by drum roll Russia.
    • Ukrainian rulers appointed by the Ukrainians in free and increasingly transparent elections. In representative democracy, it’s the representatives job to decide on behalf of the pople. Also, Zelensky is hugely popular president with support from the opposition too. Most of Ukraine support their leaders and they have a mandate from the people (especially the president).
    • You seem to confuse being leftist and a pro russian. The way I see it, they closed pro-Russian stations, some of which claimed themselves to be leftist. During a war, anti-war channels usually tend to go silent too (wonder why).

    As a person many would call a left leaning socialist myself, I find it astonishing how some self-proclaimed leftists are hell bent on claiming that Russian Federation was somehow a champion of socialist values. In fact, it’s pretty much the exact opposite of those and has nothing to do with leftist or socialist values.

    Also, if you identify as a leftist and support Russia to oppose the US or “the West”, you really need to:

    1. Read more about socialism, history and contemporary russian state.
    2. Look into the mirror and ask yourself: “Do I really want to side with Russia? Am I really a leftist?”. If you answer “yes” to both of these, return to point 1 and try again after some time.
    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    You really seem to enjoy crafting strawman arguments.

    What strawman did i craft?

    Ukraine is fighting an existential war.

    No it isn’t. As you will see when this ends with both a Ukraine and a Russia existing afterwards. This nonsense is just devoid of any realistic understanding of the circumstances that created this war or any general understanding of how wars end.

    Ukrainian rulers appointed by the Ukrainians in free and increasingly transparent elections.

    God I do hate the way americans speak “free and transparent” christ. It’s like talking to a robot. The current state was created in a US backed far right revolution. Under no circumstances can you call its elections “free”. The left in particular was not allowed to participate in the 2019 election, candidacy being refused. You can not call an election “free” while banning the left from participation and only putting up a bunch of utterly shit candidates that nobody wants, the man had a 31% approval rating and every single poll since the war began excludes the regions that matter most - Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

    You seem to confuse being leftist and a pro russian. The way I see it, they closed pro-Russian stations, some of which claimed themselves to be leftist. During a war, anti-war channels usually tend to go silent too (wonder why).

    There is nothing I can ever say to get you to stop using this as an excuse. For you, calling anything “pro Russia” enables you to close your brain down and ignore reality.

    I find it astonishing how some self-proclaimed leftists are hell bent on claiming that Russian Federation was somehow a champion of socialist values

    Absolutely nobody here has said that. You are now literally making shit up. Russia is a capitalist shithole and I want to see its end just as much as America.

    Also, if you identify as a leftist and support Russia to oppose the US or “the West”, you really need to:

    Once again you are saying things I have not said. LISTEN to the words I say instead of making up your own shit.

    Read more about socialism, history and contemporary russian state.

    I have read more than you my “left leaning” (lmao “hello fellow socialists!”) friend.

    Look into the mirror and ask yourself: “Do I really want to side with Russia? Am I really a leftist?”. If you answer “yes” to both of these, return to point 1 and try again after some time.

    Once again, you’re being a tit. You have invented a cartoon character in your head to imagine me as instead of actually listening to any of the words I say. I think this conversation is no longer worth wasting my time with.

    NukeminHerttua , (edited )
    @NukeminHerttua@sopuli.xyz avatar

    What strawman did i craft?

    See your own post above😀

    No it isn’t. As you will see when this ends with both a Ukraine and a Russia existing afterwards. This nonsense is just devoid of any realistic understanding of the circumstances that created this war or any general understanding of how wars end.

    For Ukraine it is first and foremost a defensive war to survive as a sovereign state. It is not a matter of an opinion. Second aim is to cement their country as part of “the West” via EU and Nato. If you wish, I’d be to happy to hear what you think Ukraine is fighting for.

    God I do hate the way americans speak “free and transparent” christ. It’s like talking to a robot. The current state was created in a US backed far right revolution. Under no circumstances can you call its elections “free”. The left in particular was not allowed to participate in the 2019 election, candidacy being refused. You can not call an election “free” while banning the left from participation and only putting up a bunch of utterly shit candidates that nobody wants, the man had a 31% approval rating and every single poll since the war began excludes the regions that matter most - Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

    Yeah, I don’t like the way most Americans speak either. That however, has nothing to do with our discussion here (another straw man, yay!).

    The rest of your argument is just parroting what Russia has been saying at least since the beginning of their invasion. I suppose you are Ukrainian, since you know so much about how people there feel about Zelensky and the leadership? Because the stuff the rest of see from reliable, many times first hand sources, paints a very different picture from yours.

    There is nothing I can ever say to get you to stop using this as an excuse. For you, calling anything “pro Russia” enables you to close your brain down and ignore reality.

    Using what as an excuse? Calling a Russian supporter pro Russian? Blimey!

    Absolutely nobody here has said that. You are now literally making shit up. Russia is a capitalist shithole and I want to see its end just as much as America.

    Now we found a common ground of sorts. Although I am sure our view on how that can be achieved differ quite alot. Sorry that I assumed too much, but this is a common phenomenon that I see a lot on internet.

    I have read more than you my “left leaning” (lmao “hello fellow socialists!”) friend. Good for you then! Go you!

    Once again, you’re being a tit. You have invented a cartoon character in your head to imagine me as instead of actually listening to any of the words I say. I think this conversation is no longer worth wasting my time with.

    To be honest, that comment was not directly aimed at you, but to anyone identifying as a leftist and siding with Russia and repeating their talking points. I honestly believe there is a huge contradiction in there. I could’ve been clearer, but I still stand by those words.

    And just to make it clear, I did not wish to cause you any frustration or even win an argument. I just wanted to point out things in your arguments that I find peculiar or simply misreprestative of the situation with Ukraine and Russia. I am also genuinely interested in understanding where such opinions stem from. So no, I don’t see you as a cartoon character, just a fellow lemming 😘

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    See your own post above😀

    This is just not good faith and seeing this behaviour at the start of a post just makes me not bother reading the rest.

    NukeminHerttua ,
    @NukeminHerttua@sopuli.xyz avatar

    I am sorry. That was not my intention.

    Yet my points remain the same 🙂

    kklusz ,

    Support for the war is high in Ukraine. Where did you get your sources for freedom of speech being suspended in Ukraine and people with anti war sentiments getting arrested?

    It’s ironic, you claim to care about the people, but you don’t care about what the people of Ukraine actually want.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Support for the war is high in Ukraine.

    Unreliable after everyone that opposed the war was arrested, or taped to lampposts and beaten in the state’s terror campaign carried out early on. My friends won’t openly say anything to government sources or ““media””.

    Where did you get your sources for freedom of speech being suspended in Ukraine and people with anti war sentiments getting arrested?

    Every single left wing party in the country was literally banned. If you don’t support the war you labelled “pro russia”. It’s not difficult to find examples of these arrests, and it’s not difficult to find the videos of the terror campaign that was waged. If you want some of those videos I can go find them for you but it’s pretty distressing watching hundreds of very deliberately public beatings to put fear into people, I really don’t recommend.

    Kiev has however moved to outlaw more leftist and opposition parties, taking steps to make a temporary ban on 11 opposition groups in March permanent.

    Ukraine faced criticism after introducing legislation banning the import and promotion of Russian books and music on Sunday.

    One of the new laws will forbid the printing of books by Russian nationals, unless they renounce their Russian passport and take Ukrainian citizenship. This will only apply to those who held Russian citizenship after the 1991 collapse of Soviet rule.

    Another law will prohibit the playing of music by people who gained Russian citizenship after 1991 on media and on public transport.

    Such freedom!

    kklusz ,

    I see, thank you for letting me know! I see this is indeed more nuanced than I had thought.

    Can you provide any proof of the “tied to lampposts” claim? I’m fine with seeing video proof if you have it

    Lenins2ndCat , (edited )
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    Sure, March 2022. This was a light terror-campaign waged by Ukraine to bring citizenry that were anti-war inline. Do some very public punishments and shaming in order to inflict fear into people about the consequences of talking or opposing the regime. This was all on Twitter but as with most things in this war Telegram is the only place to get it from.

    Here are some examples:, CONTENT WARNING: Beatings, nudity and some racial violence.

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/3

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/13

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/33

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/48

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/58

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/64

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/89

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/91

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/111

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/117

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/118

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/119

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/120

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/121

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/122

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/123

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/168

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/169

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/170

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/171

    t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses/182

    I’m not going to be a moralist about terror campaigns, they get waged quite often in countries at war because they work very well. The first thing socialists would do in a post-revolutionary country is wage a terror campaign to reduce the opposition. The only reason I raise these is because libs arguing that the people are “free” at the moment in this country are deluded about the reality of the situation.

    I recommend caution and critical thinking with that Telegram account too. It’s not just anti-war it’s pro-russia. The campaign that was waged shortly after the start of the war can’t really be denied though, there’s a lot more than this but I think it effectively paints the picture.

    kklusz ,

    Wow, I see. Thank you for letting me see the evidence with my own eyes, and for your patience in this discussion. I’m sorry I was too quick to accuse you of bias.

    Honestly, this should be made more accessible than a Telegram post. But I guess it is hard to do alternative hosting.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    We’re all biased. I think you’re right to assume anyone is. I just don’t stop pursuing more information on account of wanting to doggedly hold a single position.

    It was more accessible than a telegram post. But Twitter went on a very significant banning spree near the start of the war against anyone that was posting significant content that made ukraine look bad.

    My position on the war can be summed up as:

    1. Ukraine had a significant nazi problem before the war. It has worsened significantly since, contrary to the media presenting it as non-existent.
    2. The war was avoidable. But both nato and Russia could not come to terms.
    3. Nato, Ukraine and Russia all fucking suck and hundreds of thousands of families are being thrown into a meat grinder over global power shit that does not help anyone. I couldn’t give a shit who is in charge of what, I can’t stand any of them, the lives are more valuable to me than states or borders.
    4. This has nothing to do with genocide. But as with all wars there are war crimes being committed. The genocide angle is a convenient way to avoid the more complicated topic of the reason this war is happening, and it gives people a simple way to defend the continuation of the war by claiming that ending the war would result in a mass genocide (if that were the case they could just take up arms again when peace doesn’t work).
    5. Anyone claiming this is what people want is full of shit there is no freedom. Don’t get me started on the conscription gangs that go around beating and kidnapping any able-bodied men they see on the streets. There’s as many videos of that lately as there were of the terror campaign waged near the start.
    6. Only the US and Russia sitting down will end the war. The Ukrainian state has zero say in it. And neither do the people. Which as I keep pointing out are 2 separate entities that should be seen as such in every capitalist nation. Americans have zero say in what forever wars their rulers constantly get them into either. The sooner this happens the sooner lives stop being wasted and destroyed.
    lamed55087 ,

    Una dintre cele mai bune case de pariuri, superbet din România vă va deschide o întreagă lume de divertisment în materie de jocuri de noroc. Oferă nu numai o selecție largă de jocuri, dar oferă și un proces de pariere sigur și securizat, astfel încât să te poți distra de minune, fără să îți faci griji decât pentru câștigul tău. Pe site, veți găsi o mulțime de tipuri de pariuri interesante pentru toate gusturile, care cu siguranță vă vor cuceri de la prima vedere.

    NukeminHerttua ,
    @NukeminHerttua@sopuli.xyz avatar

    You are awfully considerate of the Russian law. I suppose it was okay for them to start the war because the law permitted it (did it?)? Annexation of Ukrainian land became okay too, because they made a law that permitted it, right? No matter what the Ukrainian or international law says, right? Please elaborate on how it’s the Russian law that we need to take into consideration and not the others.

    This reminded me that, thank God Russia was able to use Wagner troops, because the Russian law recognizes independent military organis…wait a minute, it doesn’t. My point: Russia can and will interpret and implement it’s laws however the guy on the top wishes. Law there has nothing to do with regulated and supervised legislature most of the so called western countries have.

    Trying to take Crimea by force is not optimal, but if it is the only way to do it, and the Ukraisinian’s decide to try it, it’s their decision because it is their territory. Might succeed, might fail, might escalate, might not…we don’t get to decide that, however terrifying the outcome might be. That’s the sad truth, but Ukraine has the right to decide.

    The reason I care for “offenders demands” is that if you give into them, they start demanding more and more and more. Putin’s Russia is on a path of escalation and it has shown that it cannot be trusted to participate in the international community. The more they get out of Ukraine, the more they emboldened to makes demands and take aggressive steps towards their neighbors. This has been the trajectory since Russo-Georgian war in 2008 and it is not going to stop until they hit a brick wall. And currently the wall they are hitting is Ukraine. Also note that this is a historical phenomenon and the way Russia has operated at least since Soviet Union and a case could be made for even earlier than that.

    If you must know, I’d probably be what most people call a socialist and a pacifist. I hate war and want nothing to do with weapons or the army. I don’t care for flags or national symbols and I despise imperialism ND colonialism. However, I do care for the letter of law and a rules based international system. Currently Russia is wiping it’s arse on these and that must be stopped, otherwise it’ll just continue and get worse.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s not about being “considerate” of the Russian law it’s about recognising what is and is not possible for the Russians to do, under their law. If the law disallows it they literally can’t do it.

    Put it another way, you could say that america should allow states to secede because that’s morally right if the people want to. But, it’s literally not possible within american law. You need to change the law to do it, and I have no idea whether you can get that to happen in congress. I am certain that you can not get this change to happen in Russian law. And herein lies the problem. Even if the negotiating teams WANTED to give up the region they can not.

    You are mistaking my observance of the reality of the situation for a value judgement.

    cannot be trusted to participate in the international community.

    The “international community” is just code that the anglo american empire uses to refer to the west and its interests. Africa, the Middle East and Asia are not included in it.

    However, I do care for the letter of law and a rules based international system.

    This is just the soft wording that the west uses for their own international hegemony.

    Russia is wiping it’s arse on these and that must be stopped

    I personally don’t give a shit that it doesn’t observe western hegemony or the “international community” (the west), but I agree that it needs to be stopped. What this entails is sitting around a negotiating table though and both sides giving something up to come away with narratives to look like winners to their people. This results in the political stability of both states afterwards. And is the only realistic way that you get both sides to agree to something. Otherwise this war will go on forever until either Ukraine runs out of men or nukes fly.

    NukeminHerttua ,
    @NukeminHerttua@sopuli.xyz avatar

    Now we are getting somewhere. 🙂

    It’s not about being “considerate” of the Russian law it’s about recognising what is and is not possible for the Russians to do, under their law. If the law disallows it they literally can’t do it.

    Pray tell then, if the law is the main factor here, how it was possible for Russia to use Wagner forces in Ukraine? I sincerely wish to know, because independent militias are illegal in Russia, yet they were able to operate there for over a year. If they were able to do that despite it being against the law, howcome they are not able to return occupied territories, even if it was agains their law? You surely don’t mean they just choose to obey laws they deem beneficial at any given point in time, cause that would be shocking😮.

    Put it another way, you could say that america should allow states to secede because that’s morally right if the people want to…

    This is a false equivalence. Contemporary United States has not invaded those states and annexed them to the Union. Russia has.

    You could argue that the US has annexed territories in the past and that the American civil war was fought to keep the Union togerther, but even then that was the matter of states attempting to cede from the Union they were part of, which in turn led to the war.

    Ukraine’s relation to Russian Federation is not the same, as it is an independent country, not part of the federation. Ukraine ceded from Soviet Union in 1991 and was recognized by the international community as well as the contemporary Russian state. In 2014 Russia broke that recognition and in 2022 it openly attacked it’s sovereign neighbour.

    You are mistaking my observance of the reality of the situation for a value judgement.

    Maybe up to a point, but the fact is that current regime in Russia can do whatever it wants, including giving up the occupied areas. Law in Russia is subjugate to its rulers. Just like they were able to craft these particular laws in a few weeks, they are able to overturn them if need be or the situation forces them to. If a law is used as a talking point, then the law must also be able to bare scrutiny. Using Russian law to justify occupation does not do this, even if you and 99% of Russians believed it did.

    The “international community” is just code that the anglo american empire uses to refer to the west and its interests. Africa, the Middle East and Asia are not included in it.

    Maybe in your bubble, but for most of us it means sovereign countries conducting diplomacy, trade, co-operation and (up-to-a point) war/conflict, in commonly agreed framework of rules and practices. These include African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries too. Now you can argue wether the current international order is fair and benefits everyone equally, but it does not change the fact that we have commonly agreed upon international framework and organizations for conducting international affairs. Members of those organizations have agreed to commit to those rules. That system has kept the world relatively peaceful for around 80 years.

    UN alone has over 193 member states that have agreed to shared rules for conducting foreign affairs. Another example is the Geneva Convention or the OSCE Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which by the way states, that there is a agreement on respect for territorial integrity, meaning that nation states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states, nor impose a border change through the use of force. Russia has signed these and many more agreements and many more, yet here we are.

    This is just the soft wording that the west uses for their own international hegemony.

    See above.

    I personally don’t give a shit that it doesn’t observe western hegemony or the “international community” (the west), but I agree that it needs to be stopped.

    From your perspective the international community/law is just a synonym for western hegemony. You base you arguments on terms like “the West” and “western hegemony” as if they were some sort of monolithic actors in international affairs, set out to destroy or dominate the world. Usually this type of mindset stems from either ideological or conspiratorial background (or both). Judging by your name, I presume the the first hits the mark?

    While I agree that the relations between the more developed countries (or “the West”) and the BRICS countries or the global south have their frictions and tensions, the global affairs is much more complicated and nuanced than what the type of explanation you are offering here, can explain.

    I am amazed how some people still parrot the idea that the “Anglo-Americans” are pulling the strings and even forcibly keeping rest of the west in their sphere (suggesting that those countries are really not independent). Hate to break the news to you but, there is no such individual political actor as “the West”. What there is, is a set of countries that share enough common values and political capital that it makes sense for them to co-operate. Each of them have their own aims and concerns, in fact so much so that, quite often it is difficult for them to even makes common decisions. Just look at the EU for example and the ways that it is constantly at odds with itself and the United States on many topics. Yet everyone that is part of that co-operative network realizes that it is the best and the safest option currently available to them. And again, there are many changes I wished to happen within “the west”, but none of those would be achieved by tearing everything down and starting from scratch. Also, the other options (like Russia’s return to 19th and 20th century imperialism) or the totalitarian capitalism of China are even scarier options.

    If you use terms like “the west”, please atleast try to define what you mean by them, otherwise it’s just going to sound like repeating talking points you’ve adopted somewhere along the way. I mean, this stuff originates in the early 2000s and has not really developed after that.

    And more importantly: what would be a valid option for the contemporary rules based system? Seriously, the whole point the post WW2 international system was to avoid major conflicts and later on, to protect sovereignity of nation states despite their size. Sure, it has had a lot of problems, yet it kept us from the Cold War turning into WW3. How does Russia’s breach of those rules contribute in building anything better? How would you restructure this system to make it more fair while at the same time protecting nations from each other?

    I am all-in for refroming UN and other international institutions, but tearing them down and disregarding agreed-upon rules is a certain way for more war and chaos. This is unfortunately exactly what is happening in Ukraine right now. And ofcourse other countries like the US have broken those rules, but what Russia has been doing since 2008 is directly and openly aimed towards tearing down that system.

    What this entails is sitting around a negotiating table though and both sides giving something up to come away with narratives to look like winners to their people. This results in the political stability of both states afterwards. And is the only realistic way that you get both sides to agree to something. Otherwise this war will go on forever until either Ukraine runs out of men or nukes fly.

    Yes, there has to be discussion at some point and probably both sides will have to give up on something. The real point though is to end the hostilities for good. And that’s the problem. All signs point to that Russia will just use peace to rearm itself and have another go at Ukraine or Nato in a few years time. The more Ukraine is able to get their land back (especially Crimea), the more unlikely another conflict will be. For Putin, losing Crimea would be a catastrophic outcome, but it would not be the end of Russia. In fact, it might be even better for them to suffer a defeat now and bury their imperialist dreams for good.

    galloog1 ,

    This is an ethnic argument, further pointing to the idea that you are making distinctly fascist points in this thread.

    Lenins2ndCat ,
    @Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world avatar

    It is impossible to talk about a genocide without talking about ethnicity. Stop being so pigheaded. I’m going to block you now.

    absentthereaper , (edited )
    @absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Tell me the crackerverse ain’t talking about “living on stolen land” lmfao

    sinovictorchan ,

    You mean that Ukrainians who are ethnically and linguistically Russians and who had been residing in Crimea before the formation of the current Ukraine country should have no political righst nor property ownership rights?

    kescusay ,
    @kescusay@lemmy.world avatar

    Nope! Not what I meant at all. Hope that clears it up for ya.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •