I'm trying to learn more about the Russia/Ukraine conflict. In the articles that I find that seem to be critical of Ukraine, there are a few that are right wing that seem to have similar viewpoints as what I've read on here or in the more leftist articles.
For example this piece from National Interest, or this from the CATO institute.
There are others that aren't flagged as right wing that are critical, but it's just got me wondering, why would right wing politicians/publications perceive these things similarly to how some communists would when the ideologies of both are so extremely opposite?
Disclaimer: I'm not pro-ukraine at all, but in my search for info that's not super pro-Ukraine propaganda, this is the stuff that comes up for me
How do you determine from where the authority derives? Also, In your mind, can democracy look like anything other than western bourgeois democracy? And, if so, what are the mechanisms of democracy that imbue it with the anti-authority characteristics that counteract specific utilization of violence/authority?
Also, what are the appropriate measures of violence/oppression that a state can take on when dealing with, for example, foreign invasion/aggression before they switch over to authoritarian (despite claiming to be defending democracy)?
How do I determine where a states authority derives from? By looking at the state of democracy. If the state has functioning democratic processes, it gets most of its authority from the people, otherwise it doesn't.
Democracy in and of itself doesn't have "mechanisms" to prevent violence or authoritarianism. If anything, the past has shown how fragile it is. It is up to the people to constantly monitor the state of democracy and step in when things get authoritarian. Democracy is little more than the idea that the power should come from the population at large, rather than a small subset of it.
I don't see how an invasion would justify any amount of oppression of the population. The only appropriate violence is that which is necessary to repell the invaders.
What are those democratic processes? How are those functioning democratic processes not mechanisms that are intended to solidify a public mandate and prevent resistance to policy by the population?
If Democracy is fragile how does one protect it? What are the tools that one can use to defend democracy? Habeus Corpus suspension act of 1863, overreach or necessity? Where is the line? If there are "democratic actions" and "authoritarian actions" that are separate from an authoritarian state or a democratic state then presumably we can look at history and determine where this line is.