i’m not saying it wasn’t influenced by the west. It wouldn’t have been successful without the context i mentioned tho. You know, where Russia tried to influence Ukraine and failed.
Also, it’s not like Russia ever tried to de-escalate this, on the contrary, since the Ukrainian revolution against Yanukovich regime, russian outlets haven’t missed any opportunity to portray Ukraine as some kind of a nazi state. It’s kinda natural of people to unite against a bigger enemy, so no wonder that the more Russia screamed about how nationalistic Ukraine is, the more nationalistic it became, with it’s peak at the start of the war.
It’s really a shame, and so fucking embarassing that political forces of the historical regions of Ukraine and Russia never got along.
The fact that modern ukrainian nationalists use ww2 related symbols only proves that, and nothing else. To call them nazis is the same as to call Russian regime a nazi one, as they too use symbolics of nazi collaborationists. What’s really funny is that they use it as a symbol of victory in ww2.
Just for the clarification sake, i don’t indulge nationalism. More over, i hate the very concept of nationality, as it has little to do with reality, and only serves propagandist purposes. And what you’re doing here is defending one group of nationalists by attacking the other.
I refuse to delve into why the so called anti-terroristic operation had started, because we both have no evidence about the actual reasons, just what the news outlets of either side wanted their people to believe. I’ll just say that given that “the west” managed to influence the western Ukraine, it’s entirely not off the table that Russia had their people on the east itself. Especially considering that there’s no linguistic, cultural, nor ethnic barriers to blend in, and the fact that the border between the two coutries was quite easily passable before the shit went south.
edit:
Your reasoning for it also doesn’t check out, considering the creation of internal displacement programs Ukraine had created, and humanitarian aid it provided, that is, if by “the war” you mean the territorial conflicts that lasted for eight years, before the official war started.
Yanukovych took the Russian loan because the IMF loan required austerity measures and the Russian loan didn’t. It wasn’t because of “Russian meddling,” but because the west put literal Nazis in power. The Russian state is run by nationalists, but not Nazis.
I defend nationalism in the context of anti-imperialism, the standard Marxist position. Fanon’s a great read on this. Russia was not and is not ethnically cleansing Ukrainians like Ukraine is towards Russians.
i’m not saying it wasn’t influenced by the west. It wouldn’t have been successful without the context i mentioned tho. You know, where Russia tried to influence Ukraine and failed.
Also, it’s not like Russia ever tried to de-escalate this, on the contrary, since the Ukrainian revolution against Yanukovich regime, russian outlets haven’t missed any opportunity to portray Ukraine as some kind of a nazi state. It’s kinda natural of people to unite against a bigger enemy, so no wonder that the more Russia screamed about how nationalistic Ukraine is, the more nationalistic it became, with it’s peak at the start of the war.
It’s really a shame, and so fucking embarassing that political forces of the historical regions of Ukraine and Russia never got along.
The fact that modern ukrainian nationalists use ww2 related symbols only proves that, and nothing else. To call them nazis is the same as to call Russian regime a nazi one, as they too use symbolics of nazi collaborationists. What’s really funny is that they use it as a symbol of victory in ww2.
Just for the clarification sake, i don’t indulge nationalism. More over, i hate the very concept of nationality, as it has little to do with reality, and only serves propagandist purposes. And what you’re doing here is defending one group of nationalists by attacking the other.
I refuse to delve into why the so called anti-terroristic operation had started, because we both have no evidence about the actual reasons, just what the news outlets of either side wanted their people to believe. I’ll just say that given that “the west” managed to influence the western Ukraine, it’s entirely not off the table that Russia had their people on the east itself. Especially considering that there’s no linguistic, cultural, nor ethnic barriers to blend in, and the fact that the border between the two coutries was quite easily passable before the shit went south.
edit: Your reasoning for it also doesn’t check out, considering the creation of internal displacement programs Ukraine had created, and humanitarian aid it provided, that is, if by “the war” you mean the territorial conflicts that lasted for eight years, before the official war started.
And if you’re talking about the current conflict, i’m afraid, “the banderites” weren’t the ones who had started it. Belarus wouldn’t have been boasting about the so called “preemptive strike” that Russia landed on “Ukrainian positions” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_now_I_will_show_you_where_the_attack_on_Belarus_was_prepared_from)
Yanukovych took the Russian loan because the IMF loan required austerity measures and the Russian loan didn’t. It wasn’t because of “Russian meddling,” but because the west put literal Nazis in power. The Russian state is run by nationalists, but not Nazis.
I defend nationalism in the context of anti-imperialism, the standard Marxist position. Fanon’s a great read on this. Russia was not and is not ethnically cleansing Ukrainians like Ukraine is towards Russians.