The Banderites, after taking power and restricting things like the Russian language, responded to Donetsk and Luhansk seceding by shelling them, killing 13,000+ civilians between 2014 and 2022. Have a Reuters link and a link to OSCE itself. Toss in Human Rights Watch for good measure. Plenty of good sources. The point is that this same Banderite regime had amassed a ton of forces in the Donbass region and dramatically increased shelling in 2022, which prompted the DPR and LPR to request aid from Russia, to which they accepted.
The osce and hrw links say nothing casualties. The hrw strongly suggests that the shelling of a working kindergarten was done by russian backed separatists.
The Reuters article does back your number, buslt doesn’t suggest a campaign of ethnic cleansing by either side
I provided sources going over the fact that constant shelling has occured and resulted in civilian deaths, not just on the raw number. Further:
Russia-backed armed groups in the Luhansk region and the Ukrainian government blamed each other for the attack. Several military experts, including the open source media group Bellingcat, said that the spray pattern from the impact crater from the shell in the yard was consistent with the attack coming from the south, the direction of Russia-backed armed groups’ positions.
Is acknowledging that Russia has committed atrocities incompatible with acknowledging that Russian-speaking groups may have legitimate grievances about rule by Ukraine?
Both Russia and Ukraine have committed war crimes, sure. Russia isn’t socialist any longer and isn’t exactly a moral paragon. However, letting the Banderites walk into Donetsk and Luhansk and slaughter them would have been a humanitarian disaster, and the fact that the seperatists in Donetsk and Luhansk seperated due to the fascist coup is hugely important in this discussion.
Russian-speaking groups in Ukraine certainly may have legitimate grievances. Whether they were worth a prolonged conflict is questionable. Most of the bloodshed could have been avoided by such groups accepting the terms of rule by Ukraine, despite their grievances. They would not be fully satisfied, but also not be bombarded by shelling. The conflict is a civil war, not ethnic cleansing.
Regardless, Russia is not liberatory. Life under Russian rule for Russian-speaking groups in the contested regions would be oppressive just as life is oppressive generally for Russians, and even if life for such groups is oppressive under rule by Ukraine. The situation in the contested regions was invoked as an excuse to garner popular support for the invasion, and helping the population was not authentically a motive.
Framing Russia as humanitarian or liberatory is absurd, and defending its atrocities is disgusting.
The Banderites in Kiev had orchestrated the Maidan Massacre, were ethnically suppressing Russians, and then this escalated once Donetsk and Luhansk separated from the new fascist regime. I really can’t get behind someone suggesting that they just accept their repression and minimize it by saying “they aren’t fully satisfied” under literal fascists.
Russia indeed isn’t a great place to live, it’s fallen quite far from its proud soviet heritage. However, the people of Donetsk and Luhansk aren’t the targets of ethnic cleansing by the Russian Federation, and they would no longer be under a neo-Nazi regime, merely a repressive nationalist one. Further, the CPRF is rising in popularity in Russia, and this forces concessions from the ruling nationalist party due to needing to maintain unity during wartime.
For the people in the Donbass region, Russia is liberatory. That’s why they voted to join them. I’m not defending war crimes, but I am defending the fact that the people of Donetsk and Luhansk voted to join the Russian Federation and to secede from the western-backed neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.
At issue is whether to support the invasion, and whether the reasons for such support validate denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.
The situation for some may have improved, or be hoped to improve, as a consequence of the invasion, but the overarching calamity across the region overshadows such particular gains. The overall humanitarian situation unequivocally has deteriorated due to the invasion.
We need to be careful with terms. “Ethnically suppressed” is vague. Russian-speaking Ukrainians were not selected for internment or elimination. Ethnic cleansing certainly seems an inappropriate allegation. What was the experience that made resistance worth the cost?
Also, fascism has a particular meaning. Ukraine has fascist militias. The regime is reactionary, installed through a coup, and a puppet of the US. All are alarming, but also common throughout the world, and their convergence still does not amount to the regime being fascist.
Without Russia intervening, the Kiev regime was about to invade DPR and LPR, creating a humanitarian crisis far exceeding the decade pre-2022. The fact is, the Banderites in Kiev had already slaughtered people in the Maidan Massacre and couped the president Eastern Ukraine supported, which is valid enough reason for seperatism. Kiev responded with shelling, warfare, and a general humanitarian crisis.
Kiev doesn’t just have fascist militias, but an outright fascist government that upholds Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. They aren’t merely reactionary, but a particular type of fascist that requires suppressing democracy, destroying labor organizers, and forcing austerity measures as Ukraine is hollowed out by the west.
The war was avoidable and is tragic, and was provoked by NATO and the Banderites. Russia tried to establish the Minsk accords to stop the fighting before 2022, and both were broken by Kiev. It’s a mess of a war that will end the only way it can, with Russia annexing the four oblasts.
I think it is a difficult case that the invasion was a net benefit in overall humanitarian terms.
The invasion occurred suddenly, without any final demands articulated to avoid war.
NATO expansion was a cause. Russian expansion was a cause. I oppose both, and take issue with the campist position of denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.
It is a mistake to divide the world by bad states versus good states. We can sympathize with workers oppressed by Ukraine, but our side should not be Russia. Our side is the international workers of the world.
Our side is the international workers of the world.
That’s another reason we critically support Russia in this conflict: they have been pitted against NATO, and the weakening of NATO is a net gain for the entire global south no matter who does it.
If your side is with the international workers of the world, then the worst outcome is Russia losing, and being weakened into opening up its markets for foreign plunder. Imperialism is the highest contradiction today, helmed by the US Empire. This isn’t simply “campism,” but a recognition that continuing to fuel the US Empire delays the global transition to socialism. Opposing both sides sounds nice from a sloganeering perspective, but unless you have an alternative that’s just saying you don’t think it actually matters.
The Banderites, after taking power and restricting things like the Russian language, responded to Donetsk and Luhansk seceding by shelling them, killing 13,000+ civilians between 2014 and 2022. Have a Reuters link and a link to OSCE itself. Toss in Human Rights Watch for good measure. Plenty of good sources. The point is that this same Banderite regime had amassed a ton of forces in the Donbass region and dramatically increased shelling in 2022, which prompted the DPR and LPR to request aid from Russia, to which they accepted.
The osce and hrw links say nothing casualties. The hrw strongly suggests that the shelling of a working kindergarten was done by russian backed separatists.
The Reuters article does back your number, buslt doesn’t suggest a campaign of ethnic cleansing by either side
I provided sources going over the fact that constant shelling has occured and resulted in civilian deaths, not just on the raw number. Further:
Actual examination of shelling shows that it’s Kiev that’s guilty. The HRW reports on the shelling and humanitarian impact, while playing vague at who actually was guilty.
Ukraine represses separatist movements, just like Russia and every other state.
How does it bear on Russia having committed atrocities?
Oh, there was a separatist movement? How come, why did all those people all decide to separate?
I bet it was those dirty lying russians tricking them into not wanting to be killed by Banderites
Is acknowledging that Russia has committed atrocities incompatible with acknowledging that Russian-speaking groups may have legitimate grievances about rule by Ukraine?
Like what, what are the legitimate grievances?
Both Russia and Ukraine have committed war crimes, sure. Russia isn’t socialist any longer and isn’t exactly a moral paragon. However, letting the Banderites walk into Donetsk and Luhansk and slaughter them would have been a humanitarian disaster, and the fact that the seperatists in Donetsk and Luhansk seperated due to the fascist coup is hugely important in this discussion.
Russian-speaking groups in Ukraine certainly may have legitimate grievances. Whether they were worth a prolonged conflict is questionable. Most of the bloodshed could have been avoided by such groups accepting the terms of rule by Ukraine, despite their grievances. They would not be fully satisfied, but also not be bombarded by shelling. The conflict is a civil war, not ethnic cleansing.
Regardless, Russia is not liberatory. Life under Russian rule for Russian-speaking groups in the contested regions would be oppressive just as life is oppressive generally for Russians, and even if life for such groups is oppressive under rule by Ukraine. The situation in the contested regions was invoked as an excuse to garner popular support for the invasion, and helping the population was not authentically a motive.
Framing Russia as humanitarian or liberatory is absurd, and defending its atrocities is disgusting.
The Banderites in Kiev had orchestrated the Maidan Massacre, were ethnically suppressing Russians, and then this escalated once Donetsk and Luhansk separated from the new fascist regime. I really can’t get behind someone suggesting that they just accept their repression and minimize it by saying “they aren’t fully satisfied” under literal fascists.
Russia indeed isn’t a great place to live, it’s fallen quite far from its proud soviet heritage. However, the people of Donetsk and Luhansk aren’t the targets of ethnic cleansing by the Russian Federation, and they would no longer be under a neo-Nazi regime, merely a repressive nationalist one. Further, the CPRF is rising in popularity in Russia, and this forces concessions from the ruling nationalist party due to needing to maintain unity during wartime.
For the people in the Donbass region, Russia is liberatory. That’s why they voted to join them. I’m not defending war crimes, but I am defending the fact that the people of Donetsk and Luhansk voted to join the Russian Federation and to secede from the western-backed neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.
At issue is whether to support the invasion, and whether the reasons for such support validate denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.
The situation for some may have improved, or be hoped to improve, as a consequence of the invasion, but the overarching calamity across the region overshadows such particular gains. The overall humanitarian situation unequivocally has deteriorated due to the invasion.
We need to be careful with terms. “Ethnically suppressed” is vague. Russian-speaking Ukrainians were not selected for internment or elimination. Ethnic cleansing certainly seems an inappropriate allegation. What was the experience that made resistance worth the cost?
Also, fascism has a particular meaning. Ukraine has fascist militias. The regime is reactionary, installed through a coup, and a puppet of the US. All are alarming, but also common throughout the world, and their convergence still does not amount to the regime being fascist.
Without Russia intervening, the Kiev regime was about to invade DPR and LPR, creating a humanitarian crisis far exceeding the decade pre-2022. The fact is, the Banderites in Kiev had already slaughtered people in the Maidan Massacre and couped the president Eastern Ukraine supported, which is valid enough reason for seperatism. Kiev responded with shelling, warfare, and a general humanitarian crisis.
Kiev doesn’t just have fascist militias, but an outright fascist government that upholds Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. They aren’t merely reactionary, but a particular type of fascist that requires suppressing democracy, destroying labor organizers, and forcing austerity measures as Ukraine is hollowed out by the west.
The war was avoidable and is tragic, and was provoked by NATO and the Banderites. Russia tried to establish the Minsk accords to stop the fighting before 2022, and both were broken by Kiev. It’s a mess of a war that will end the only way it can, with Russia annexing the four oblasts.
I think it is a difficult case that the invasion was a net benefit in overall humanitarian terms.
The invasion occurred suddenly, without any final demands articulated to avoid war.
NATO expansion was a cause. Russian expansion was a cause. I oppose both, and take issue with the campist position of denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.
It is a mistake to divide the world by bad states versus good states. We can sympathize with workers oppressed by Ukraine, but our side should not be Russia. Our side is the international workers of the world.
That’s another reason we critically support Russia in this conflict: they have been pitted against NATO, and the weakening of NATO is a net gain for the entire global south no matter who does it.
If your side is with the international workers of the world, then the worst outcome is Russia losing, and being weakened into opening up its markets for foreign plunder. Imperialism is the highest contradiction today, helmed by the US Empire. This isn’t simply “campism,” but a recognition that continuing to fuel the US Empire delays the global transition to socialism. Opposing both sides sounds nice from a sloganeering perspective, but unless you have an alternative that’s just saying you don’t think it actually matters.