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.

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.

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.

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.