NATO Expansion: The argument that NATO’s eastward expansion “provoked” Russia is often linked to Gorbachev’s 1990 talks with Western leaders. However, this promise was tied to Germany’s unification, not a blanket prohibition on expansion. And importantly eastern european countries sought NATO membership because of their historical (and justified) fears of Russian imperialism (a dynamic Marxists should understand as nations seeking sovereignty free from external dominance.)
Western Involvement in Ukraine: The U.S. supporting a regime change in Ukraine in 2014 is thought to be imperialism. But ignores the agency of Ukrainians, who led the Maidan protests because of already existing deep dissatisfaction with Yanukovych’s corrupt, oligarchic regime and his pivot to Russia. Supporting popular uprisings against oligarchs should align with Marxist values even if “the West” has its own interests
The Role of Fascism in Ukraine: Yes, Ukraine has issues with far-right groups like so many countries but exaggerating their influence as a justification for invasion serves to divert attention from Russia’s own reactionary politics. Far-right elements in Ukraine do not define the country’s political landscape, nor do they justify imperial aggression from another state. Russia has its own history of fostering right-wing authoritarianism.
Minsk Agreements: While the West" and Ukraine could be criticized for their handling of the Minsk agreements, Russia also violated these accords by continuing support for the separatists. Both sides share blame for the failure of Minsk, but it doesn’t make Russia’s invasion justified. Ukrainians didn’t provoke a full-scale invasion; they were defending their sovereignty.
NATO as a “Defensive” Alliance: Criticism of NATO’s imperialistic behavior is fair its actions in places like Libya show it isn’t 100% defensive. But in this case, NATO’s expansion was driven by countries seeking security from a historically imperialist power. Ukraine wasn’t “provoking” Russia by wanting self-determination; it was trying to secure its future.
You’re trying to push this “Actuall, but Ukraine DID provoke” narrative by mixing in unverified, ideologically biased material with references that are legitimate, but isolated incidents. Like linking far-right activity to justify the war conveniently ignores Russia’s (I should probably say everyone’s) own far-right issues. Marxists should reject imperialism in all its forms, including Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Mostly NATO, and by that I mean mostly the US. The Ukrainian state is in bed with and dependent on the US, so yes it was and is a participant.
mixing in unverified, ideologically biased material with references that are legitimate
The implication here is, the more biased, the less trustworthy/factual. This is false, and anyway, I don’t think you fully see the bias baked into the supposedly unbiased sources. And “unverified” I suspect means not blessed by Western states (which are run by the capitalist class[1][2]) or Western NGOs (which are funded by Western states and the capitalist class) or Western corporate media (which are owned by the capitalist class).
isolated incidents
Liberals often view history that way, but historical materialists don’t.
Yes, Ukraine has ties with the U.S., but sovereign nations have the right to choose their alliances. Ukraine’s Western integration stems from its desire for self-determination, not just U.S. influence. Russia’s aggression isn’t justified merely because Ukraine sought NATO’s support.
Bias exists everywhere, but dismissing “Western” sources wholesale, while elevating openly ideological ones, doesn’t strengthen the argument. Marxist critique should apply equally to all capitalist states, including Russia, which operates under an oligarchic system that exploits its own people.12
While far-right elements in Ukraine are real, they’re a small part of the picture. Reducing Ukraine to these groups oversimplifies the conflict. Most Ukrainians are fighting for sovereignty, not fascism.
Russia’s actions are imperialist too, and as a Marxist, you should critique imperialism wherever it emerges, not just from the West.
I hardly dismissed Western sources wholesale. Plenty of my links are to Western corporate & NGO sources.
Ukraine’s Western integration stems from its desire for self-determination, not just U.S. influence.
I mean, you say that like the people of Ukraine chose that path, but they didn’t. The Ukrainian oligarchs did, specifically the oligarchs that aligned with the US for the 2014 coup. They decided to bet on that horse. But I think it’s a stretch to call that self-determination.
Yes, Russia is shitty as well, and no less an oligarchy than the US. And Ukraine has been shitty & famously corrupt for decades; that didn’t start with Poroshenko. Russia, if given its druthers, would be imperialist, but since it presently doesn’t, it presently isn’t. Putin tried to join NATO once, to join the imperialist club, but that was rejected, because the US wanted Russia Balkanized & plundered instead. Russia has figured out it’s better off allying with Global South countries than attempting imperialist adventures upon them. And this war has accelerated that allyship.
“The people of Ukraine didn’t choose that path, the oligarchs did.”
It’s true Ukraine has a history of oligarchic influence, but the 2014 Maidan protests were a massive, popular uprising. Ukrainians were fed up with Yanukovych’s corruption and his decision to abandon the EU agreement for closer ties with Russia. This wasn’t just oligarchs pulling strings; millions of Ukrainians demonstrated for a future that aligned with Europe, seeking more autonomy from Russia.
“Russia would be imperialist, but isn’t right now.”
I would argue that Russia is acting imperialistically. The annexation of Crimea, the war in Donbas, and now the invasion of Ukraine are clear examples of Russia asserting control over its neighbors. Even if it’s not globally imperialist like the U.S., these actions align with a regional imperialism that Marxists should still oppose.
Ultimately, this isn’t about picking sides between oligarchies, but supporting the principle of self-determination for Ukraine, including resisting imperialist aggression from any direction.
The Maidan protests were partially organic and partially inorganic. Yes there were people genuinely unhappy with the administration who protested. People were angry about the corruption before Poroshenko, and they’re angry about corruption today. Many western Ukrainians, especially Banderite western Ukrainians, were not happy with the election of Poroshenko and the the turn toward closer ties to Russia that it implied. But they were not the majority. The majority elected Poroshenko.
When the US wants regime change, it doesn’t do it from a blank slate. It investigates the endemic tensions and leverages them, inflames them. The US has kept clandestine ties with fascist elements in western Ukraine since forever. They leveraged them, and presumably whichever oligarchs who wanted to join in, under cover of popular protest. The job of Western NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy job is to facilitate coups. “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” — Allen Weinstein, co-founder of the NED. Western media’s job is to paint color revolutions as entirely organic.
Yes, the self-determination of the Ukrainian people, the western Ukrainians and the eastern Ukrainians both.
And I believe in the right of the Eastern Ukrainians to not be attacked by fascist western Ukrainian paramilitaries[1] with tacit & overt support from the Ukrainian government and the US.
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.
No matter how many times Western states and corporate media insist that it wasn’t provoked won’t change the fact that it was[1][2].
NATO Expansion: The argument that NATO’s eastward expansion “provoked” Russia is often linked to Gorbachev’s 1990 talks with Western leaders. However, this promise was tied to Germany’s unification, not a blanket prohibition on expansion. And importantly eastern european countries sought NATO membership because of their historical (and justified) fears of Russian imperialism (a dynamic Marxists should understand as nations seeking sovereignty free from external dominance.)
Western Involvement in Ukraine: The U.S. supporting a regime change in Ukraine in 2014 is thought to be imperialism. But ignores the agency of Ukrainians, who led the Maidan protests because of already existing deep dissatisfaction with Yanukovych’s corrupt, oligarchic regime and his pivot to Russia. Supporting popular uprisings against oligarchs should align with Marxist values even if “the West” has its own interests
The Role of Fascism in Ukraine: Yes, Ukraine has issues with far-right groups like so many countries but exaggerating their influence as a justification for invasion serves to divert attention from Russia’s own reactionary politics. Far-right elements in Ukraine do not define the country’s political landscape, nor do they justify imperial aggression from another state. Russia has its own history of fostering right-wing authoritarianism.
Minsk Agreements: While the West" and Ukraine could be criticized for their handling of the Minsk agreements, Russia also violated these accords by continuing support for the separatists. Both sides share blame for the failure of Minsk, but it doesn’t make Russia’s invasion justified. Ukrainians didn’t provoke a full-scale invasion; they were defending their sovereignty.
NATO as a “Defensive” Alliance: Criticism of NATO’s imperialistic behavior is fair its actions in places like Libya show it isn’t 100% defensive. But in this case, NATO’s expansion was driven by countries seeking security from a historically imperialist power. Ukraine wasn’t “provoking” Russia by wanting self-determination; it was trying to secure its future.
You’re trying to push this “Actuall, but Ukraine DID provoke” narrative by mixing in unverified, ideologically biased material with references that are legitimate, but isolated incidents. Like linking far-right activity to justify the war conveniently ignores Russia’s (I should probably say everyone’s) own far-right issues. Marxists should reject imperialism in all its forms, including Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Mostly NATO, and by that I mean mostly the US. The Ukrainian state is in bed with and dependent on the US, so yes it was and is a participant.
The implication here is, the more biased, the less trustworthy/factual. This is false, and anyway, I don’t think you fully see the bias baked into the supposedly unbiased sources. And “unverified” I suspect means not blessed by Western states (which are run by the capitalist class[1][2]) or Western NGOs (which are funded by Western states and the capitalist class) or Western corporate media (which are owned by the capitalist class).
Liberals often view history that way, but historical materialists don’t.
Yes, Ukraine has ties with the U.S., but sovereign nations have the right to choose their alliances. Ukraine’s Western integration stems from its desire for self-determination, not just U.S. influence. Russia’s aggression isn’t justified merely because Ukraine sought NATO’s support.
Bias exists everywhere, but dismissing “Western” sources wholesale, while elevating openly ideological ones, doesn’t strengthen the argument. Marxist critique should apply equally to all capitalist states, including Russia, which operates under an oligarchic system that exploits its own people. 1 2
While far-right elements in Ukraine are real, they’re a small part of the picture. Reducing Ukraine to these groups oversimplifies the conflict. Most Ukrainians are fighting for sovereignty, not fascism.
Russia’s actions are imperialist too, and as a Marxist, you should critique imperialism wherever it emerges, not just from the West.
I hardly dismissed Western sources wholesale. Plenty of my links are to Western corporate & NGO sources.
I mean, you say that like the people of Ukraine chose that path, but they didn’t. The Ukrainian oligarchs did, specifically the oligarchs that aligned with the US for the 2014 coup. They decided to bet on that horse. But I think it’s a stretch to call that self-determination.
Yes, Russia is shitty as well, and no less an oligarchy than the US. And Ukraine has been shitty & famously corrupt for decades; that didn’t start with Poroshenko. Russia, if given its druthers, would be imperialist, but since it presently doesn’t, it presently isn’t. Putin tried to join NATO once, to join the imperialist club, but that was rejected, because the US wanted Russia Balkanized & plundered instead. Russia has figured out it’s better off allying with Global South countries than attempting imperialist adventures upon them. And this war has accelerated that allyship.
It’s true Ukraine has a history of oligarchic influence, but the 2014 Maidan protests were a massive, popular uprising. Ukrainians were fed up with Yanukovych’s corruption and his decision to abandon the EU agreement for closer ties with Russia. This wasn’t just oligarchs pulling strings; millions of Ukrainians demonstrated for a future that aligned with Europe, seeking more autonomy from Russia.
I would argue that Russia is acting imperialistically. The annexation of Crimea, the war in Donbas, and now the invasion of Ukraine are clear examples of Russia asserting control over its neighbors. Even if it’s not globally imperialist like the U.S., these actions align with a regional imperialism that Marxists should still oppose.
Ultimately, this isn’t about picking sides between oligarchies, but supporting the principle of self-determination for Ukraine, including resisting imperialist aggression from any direction.
The Maidan protests were partially organic and partially inorganic. Yes there were people genuinely unhappy with the administration who protested. People were angry about the corruption before Poroshenko, and they’re angry about corruption today. Many western Ukrainians, especially Banderite western Ukrainians, were not happy with the election of Poroshenko and the the turn toward closer ties to Russia that it implied. But they were not the majority. The majority elected Poroshenko.
When the US wants regime change, it doesn’t do it from a blank slate. It investigates the endemic tensions and leverages them, inflames them. The US has kept clandestine ties with fascist elements in western Ukraine since forever. They leveraged them, and presumably whichever oligarchs who wanted to join in, under cover of popular protest. The job of Western NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy job is to facilitate coups. “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” — Allen Weinstein, co-founder of the NED. Western media’s job is to paint color revolutions as entirely organic.
Question: do you believe in the self-determination of Ukrainians?
Absolutely, but that was intolerable to the US, which is why they coup’ed its government in 2014 and installed a puppet one.
Yes and the 33 million people whose lives have been uprooted by the invasion, are undoubtedly very happy Russia is ‘fixing’ this with violence.
Yes, the self-determination of the Ukrainian people, the western Ukrainians and the eastern Ukrainians both.
And I believe in the right of the Eastern Ukrainians to not be attacked by fascist western Ukrainian paramilitaries[1] with tacit & overt support from the Ukrainian government and the US.
And I believe in the Ukrainian state to not suppress regional languages.
And I believe in the Ukrainian state to not ban political parties.
Right, so how does the full scale, violent invasion by a foreign state help the self determination of both Ukrainian peoples?
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.