It certainly is violent, as all invasions are, though it’s not a full scale invasion. Russia has not fully activated its military, and it has no intent on taking all of Ukraine. That would be a terrible idea, if for no other reason than the fact that eastern western Ukraine is very anti-Russian and has a lot of fascists who are virulently anti-Russian. It would be a terrible idea to try to permanently occupy it. In contrast, the annexation of Crimea was practically a cake walk, because most of the people of Crimea wanted to be annexed. And it seems it was for the best for them, because they didn’t suffer years of attacks by western Ukrainians like their neighbors to their north.
Still, by international law the invasion was & is illegal, and it certainly is violent. After the 2014 coup, an anti-Russian government—blessed by Victoria Nuland (who had been on the ground handing out cookies for the coup)—was installed, eastern Ukraine declared its independence. This independence was not recognized the Ukrainian government of course. It was a very messy situation. Ukraine was in a state of civil war from the coup until the invasion. I don’t know what percentage of the people of eastern Ukraine welcomed the Russian invasion/liberation. 30%, 50%, 70%? I have no idea.
Unfortunately, as complicated as that all is, realpolitik can’t be ignored. For an analogy, consider the Cuban missile crisis (BTW we now know that the reason Russia & Cuba did that was because the US had secretly installed nuclear weapons in Turkey).
Imagine if Russia (or say China) were expanding its “defensive alliance” into south & central America, and making plans to expand it further, right up to the California–Texas border, which would likely lead to “defensive” nuclear weapons right on our back porch. Maybe they’re in talks with Canada as well, in an effort to “contain” the US. Realistically—regardless of what is internationally legal (which the US usually ignores anyway)—what would the US do?
The US has has been working a plan to break up Russia for the last thirty years. Ukraine is just a pawn to the US. This is the confrontation the US wanted, with the hopes of starting that Balkanization. It doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Ukrainians’ lives, never mind their self-determination. The US does this kind of thing all the time.
My question was: how does the violence of the invasion help the self determination of Ukrainian people?
I’ll be more explicit: why not simply acknowledge that the invasion is not only unlawful, but deeply immoral – and completely contradictory to the self determination of a people?
The eastern Ukrainians, who, after the Maidan coup, declared independence from the unelected government, and were subsequently terrorized by the Banderites, with tacit and overt support from the Ukrainian and US governments?
The men being pulled off the streets and pushed to the front lines against their will?
.
I doubt you actually know what real-life Ukrainians actually want, because I suspect your vision of the Ukrainian people may as well be from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And I suspect your conceptualization of self-determination is equally undeveloped.
I think the reason you’re interested in the Ukrainian people’s self-determination is because our governments and corporate media have spend the last two years telling you to care. But not real-life people. These are unrealized, cartoon Ukrainian people, who all coincidentally want exactly the same thing that Zelensky says Ukraine wants. They want you to imagine that the “self-determination” that all these cartoon Ukrainians want is exactly the same thing that the extremely corrupt, undemocratic Ukrainian government wants.
When I say I care about the Ukrainian people’s self-determination, I’m talking about the real-life, flesh-and-blood working class people, not the Ukrainian state.
The reason I am interested in the Ukrainian people is because I am European and volunteer in refugee relief. I am confronted with the human cost of this invasion on a very, very regular basis. The lives of 33 million people have been violently uprooted by the decision of a foreign state, and the only socialist stance to take in that regard is clear condemnation. It is that simple.
It certainly is violent, as all invasions are, though it’s not a full scale invasion. Russia has not fully activated its military, and it has no intent on taking all of Ukraine. That would be a terrible idea, if for no other reason than the fact that
easternwestern Ukraine is very anti-Russian and has a lot of fascists who are virulently anti-Russian. It would be a terrible idea to try to permanently occupy it. In contrast, the annexation of Crimea was practically a cake walk, because most of the people of Crimea wanted to be annexed. And it seems it was for the best for them, because they didn’t suffer years of attacks by western Ukrainians like their neighbors to their north.Still, by international law the invasion was & is illegal, and it certainly is violent. After the 2014 coup, an anti-Russian government—blessed by Victoria Nuland (who had been on the ground handing out cookies for the coup)—was installed, eastern Ukraine declared its independence. This independence was not recognized the Ukrainian government of course. It was a very messy situation. Ukraine was in a state of civil war from the coup until the invasion. I don’t know what percentage of the people of eastern Ukraine welcomed the Russian invasion/liberation. 30%, 50%, 70%? I have no idea.
Unfortunately, as complicated as that all is, realpolitik can’t be ignored. For an analogy, consider the Cuban missile crisis (BTW we now know that the reason Russia & Cuba did that was because the US had secretly installed nuclear weapons in Turkey).
Imagine if Russia (or say China) were expanding its “defensive alliance” into south & central America, and making plans to expand it further, right up to the California–Texas border, which would likely lead to “defensive” nuclear weapons right on our back porch. Maybe they’re in talks with Canada as well, in an effort to “contain” the US. Realistically—regardless of what is internationally legal (which the US usually ignores anyway)—what would the US do?
The US has has been working a plan to break up Russia for the last thirty years. Ukraine is just a pawn to the US. This is the confrontation the US wanted, with the hopes of starting that Balkanization. It doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Ukrainians’ lives, never mind their self-determination. The US does this kind of thing all the time.
My question was: how does the violence of the invasion help the self determination of Ukrainian people?
I’ll be more explicit: why not simply acknowledge that the invasion is not only unlawful, but deeply immoral – and completely contradictory to the self determination of a people?
The self-determination of which Ukrainian people?
.
I doubt you actually know what real-life Ukrainians actually want, because I suspect your vision of the Ukrainian people may as well be from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And I suspect your conceptualization of self-determination is equally undeveloped.
I think the reason you’re interested in the Ukrainian people’s self-determination is because our governments and corporate media have spend the last two years telling you to care. But not real-life people. These are unrealized, cartoon Ukrainian people, who all coincidentally want exactly the same thing that Zelensky says Ukraine wants. They want you to imagine that the “self-determination” that all these cartoon Ukrainians want is exactly the same thing that the extremely corrupt, undemocratic Ukrainian government wants.
When I say I care about the Ukrainian people’s self-determination, I’m talking about the real-life, flesh-and-blood working class people, not the Ukrainian state.
The reason I am interested in the Ukrainian people is because I am European and volunteer in refugee relief. I am confronted with the human cost of this invasion on a very, very regular basis. The lives of 33 million people have been violently uprooted by the decision of a foreign state, and the only socialist stance to take in that regard is clear condemnation. It is that simple.