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
I can't remember the last time most western democracies held referenda before going to war.
Would it be safe to say that this is inherently authoritarian and that the violent resistance and potential overthrow of these governments would be a democratic action because, as illustrated above, these governments are authoritarian and they wantonly violate the democratic process?
The invasion of other countries is authoritarian. Resistance against that, even violent, is warrented.
Unfortunately, even the most democratic systems will have authoritarian elements. The world isn't black and white, it isn't "good" democracies vs "evil" dictatorships. Pretty much every country has a hybrid system running.
Whether a government is so rotten that it needs to be overthrown is up to the people. The questions ultimately are: is our government democratic enough? Are there ways of reforming it? Is overthrowing it worth the bloodshed? Will our newly established government have a chance of being more democratic, or is it more likely to end up even more authoritarian?
I can't answer these questions, personally I think the time for a revolt is around the time the government starts to lock up non-violent dissidents.
I know they aren't here to defend this asinine point of view, but for the viewers at home, this means that they literally believe that the time to revolt is when someone is locked up for stealing something (who knows though, maybe that is a 'violent dissent from the democratic rights of the property owner, I can't tell), put in jail overnight for public intoxication, or being placed in jail for not paying a fine. While I can somewhat agree with this, that still means that there hasn't been a single government in the existence of the world that isn't authoritarian and in need of immediate revolution. This includes any known functional anarchist collectives. This statement essentially leads to a state of constant revolution, an unprincipled libertarian anarchists or Trotskyist wet dream.
The logic goes like this, if you are in violation of the rules of a polity, you are by definition, dissenting from the decisions of that polity, what that means is that 'non-violent dissension' is an impossibly broad term that has never applied and can never apply to any real functional state apparatus. It is quite literally the bedrock of 'no-bedtimes, no-vegetables' libertarian anarchism. The state, under this idea, could never actually enforce any public mandates such as vaccination, public education, or speed limits without being in violation. They also could not control the business dealings of hostile corporate entities, as long as they are suitably 'non-violent'.