See the full interview on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/russias-party-on-87936354The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) is the second ...
That's exactly what being "pro"/"anti" Russian is.
the denial of the right to self-determination
This isn't self-determination, it is states feuding over the border line. Might as well apply self-determination to CSA diehards chanting "States' Rights" as Azov dorks.
I mean more so just as an ethical position
The only ethical position is an anti-war position. Any assertion that you can ethically fling high explosives across a countryside is false. It can't be done in any context.
that only ended with a Russian invasion in defense of the Donetsk rebels.
Which was the "one state" that kicked this mess off? Because I can't find it. I see no less than three separate states actively involved for over a decade.
So if a state invades another with the intention of occupying a chunk of it, setting up a puppet government, and enacting de-Ukrainisation policies in the east, the people being invaded do not have a right to self-defence?
Change "de-Ukrainisation" with "de-Ba'athification" and that's the argument I have been pitched since 2003, yes. Totally legitimate and 100% justifiable, so long as you can claim an existential threat to your motherland.
You can say what you will about the Russians and their ham-fisted efforts at mitigating the conflict. But when NATO is proposing the extension of short-range missiles into your next door neighbor's territory, they at least had a better "can't let that smoking gun become a mushroom cloud" argument than anyone in DC did twenty years ago.
That's exactly what being "pro"/"anti" Russian is.
This isn't self-determination, it is states feuding over the border line. Might as well apply self-determination to CSA diehards chanting "States' Rights" as Azov dorks.
The only ethical position is an anti-war position. Any assertion that you can ethically fling high explosives across a countryside is false. It can't be done in any context.
deleted by creator
Color Revolution, which resulted in a coup of the sitting government
which cascaded into a civil war against East Ukrainian seperatists
that only ended with a Russian invasion in defense of the Donetsk rebels.
Which was the "one state" that kicked this mess off? Because I can't find it. I see no less than three separate states actively involved for over a decade.
Change "de-Ukrainisation" with "de-Ba'athification" and that's the argument I have been pitched since 2003, yes. Totally legitimate and 100% justifiable, so long as you can claim an existential threat to your motherland.
You can say what you will about the Russians and their ham-fisted efforts at mitigating the conflict. But when NATO is proposing the extension of short-range missiles into your next door neighbor's territory, they at least had a better "can't let that smoking gun become a mushroom cloud" argument than anyone in DC did twenty years ago.