this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2026
36 points (80.0% liked)
World News
42092 readers
323 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yanukovych was supported largely in Eastern Ukraine:
The event that sparked the coup was Yanukovych deciding to go with a Russian loan that did not require him to enact austerity measures on the Ukrainian populace, instead of the IMF loan that did. The far-right in Ukraine, the nationalists that upbold Nazi-collaborator Stepan Bandera, worked with NATO to overthrow the government. The modern Kiev state is a direct descendent of that far-right movement.
The Donbass region then seceded from Kiev, and the Ukrainian Civil War began. You are erasing the agency of those in the Donbass that still supported Yanukovych. NATO was upset that Ukraine was not falling under their influence more, and so they supported domestic, home-grown neo-Nazis in overthrowing the democratically elected president.
The US does not dominate Russia, not since the 90s. After the nationalists took power, they ended the crisis that foreign finance capital had created by gobbling up the former Soviet state for profit. A domestic capitalist class arose, but it kept the wealth inside Russia, if mostly in their hands, rather than keeping it flowing outside of Russia. Russia is a far more industrialized country than western European countries, they produce a lot for themselves, and trade heavily with regional partners like China. They inherited the soviet union's developed industry, so this only makes sense.
You have a concerningly chauvanist view of Russia.
I think this you are confused of several different things: legitimate regional divisions within Ukraine, the real influence of far-right nationalists, the nature of the Maidan revolution, and Russia’s own geopolitical and economic interests.
First, Yanukovych’s support was indeed concentrated in eastern and southern Ukraine, and many people in Donbas genuinely opposed the change of government in 2014. But acknowledging their agency does not mean accepting the claim that the war was simply a spontaneous civil war caused by Kyiv refusing to respect their wishes. The conflict developed through a combination of domestic political divisions, the seizure of government buildings by armed groups, Russian support for separatist forces and eventually direct Russian military intervention. You conveniently ignore Russia’s role in escalating and sustaining the conflict.
Second, which should be very obvious, the existence of far right groups does not establish that NATO orchestrated a coup or that the Ukrainian state is fundamentally a Nazi project. Far right organizations were disproportionately visible in street confrontations, but they performed poorly in subsequent national elections. Svoboda won approximately 10.4% of the vote in the 2012 parliamentary election, falling to around 4.7% in 2014. That hardly supports the idea that Ukrainian politics as a whole was taken over by a Nazi movement. And if we take a peek at the Russian side, where Nazi iconography is flaunted and the state is a dictatorship with obvious (statistically proven) fake elections.
Third, the loan dispute is more complicated than the claim that Yanukovych simply chose a humane Russian loan over a cruel IMF loan. That just a silly idea. It was a geopolitical bargain that would strengthen Moscow's leverage over Ukraine. Ukrainians were protesting not merely over the technical terms of a loan, but over the government's reversal on European integration, corruption, police violence, and the increasingly authoritarian direction of the state. You cannot reduce the entire movement to NATO manipulating Ukrainians over a financial dispute. Yet you do that. Why?
Finally, the argument about Russia's economy does not really establish what you want it to establish. Industrial capacity is not the same thing as broad economic prosperity,I. Economic independence from Western finance is not the same thing as economic independence from global capital. Oligarchic class, dependence on hydrocarbon exports, capital flight, inequality... The fact that Russian capital is controlled domestically rather than by Western investors does not mean that Russian people benefit.
US and NATO have their own strategic interests, sometimes destructive. That deserves criticism. But Russia is also an imperial power with its own regional ambitions, and its invasion of Ukraine cannot be explained as merely a defensive response, even more so confusing they are tearing down cities leaving just rubble and death. Acknowledging that does not require pretending their actions are identical or that smaller countries have no right to determine their own political future.
So I would reject the accusation of chauvinism. Criticizing Russian nationalism, oligarchic capitalism, or military intervention is not an expression of hostility toward Russian people or Russian culture. Likewise criticizing Ukrainian farright movements does not mean denying Ukrainian sovereignty. The consistent position is to recognize the agency of Ukrainians, including those in Donbas, while also recognizing the agency of Russians and the interests pursued by the Russian state. Neither Washington nor Moscow should get to decide the political future of Ukraine on behalf of Ukrainians.
But you don't seem to agree? Or you think that its all some conspiracy and Ukrainians actually love Russians.
The war was not simply sparked by fascists overthrowing the president the Donbass region supported, but the total capitulation to NATO and imperialism. Russian influence existed previously, just as western influence did, but it was not Russia that aided the coup, merely those that took up arms against the fascists.
As for Ukraine and its love-affair with Bandera, this is open and honestly waved proudly, to the point that ties with Poland are in serious strain. Zelensky himself has said that he wishes to make Ukraine the "Israel of Europe," and anti-sovietism has become the basis of state ideology. Where Russia has questionable legitimacy in their elections, Zelensky has stopped all elections, despite growing controversy over his regimes corruption and a lack of support for the war.
As for the far-right wishing to be dominated by western imperialism, rather than play a neutral role and maintain ties with Russia, I already acknowledged this. Of course the far-right did not simply want austerity, they also wanted further integration with European imperialists, and oppose Russia. I already stated as much.
I never said the Russian people benefit from being exploited domestically, rather than internationally. I merely explained that the west wishes to re-dominate Russia, and that the US does not presently dominate Russia.
If you respect the right of people to self-determination, then you should support the right of Donetsk and Luhansk to secede and request Russian assistance, and you should reject NATO's expansionism that provoked the war in the first place. You are a chauvanist because you treat Russians as genetically evil.
US, EU, and NATO interests are not merely "sometimes destructive," they are nakedly imperialist and seek to pilfer as much surplus value from the rest of the world as possible.
You keep using words like fascist, imperialism “self-determination” as if labeling something proves your argument.
Even if Ukraine has a serious far right problem, that doesn't make its entire government fascist or prove NATO orchestrated Maidan. Even if NATO expansion contributed to Russian security concerns, that doesn't automatically justify invading Ukraine. You're confusing explanations for political events with justifications for them.
Your appeal to self determination is especially inconsistent. Why does Donbas's desire to separate from Ukraine count as genuine popular agency, while Ukrainians' desire to move closer to Europe is dismissed as submission to imperialism? If people have the right to determine their political future, that principle cannot apply only when their preferences align with Moscow. And a separatist movement's claim to represent a population doesn't automatically establish a legitimate mandate to secede, particularly under armed conflict and foreign military involvement.
You also keep saying Russia “merely” assisted resistance to fascism. “Merely” is doing a lot of work there: it sanitizes Russian intervention without examining Russia's own strategic interests. If Western powers exploit political divisions to expand their influence, why assume Russia doesn't exploit those same divisions to maintain its own sphere of influence?
Finally, accusing me of believing Russians are “genetically evil” is a straw man. Criticizing the Russian state is not expressing hatred toward Russian people. You haven't identified anything I've said that supports that accusation.
The underlying issue is your double standard: Western influence is imperialism, Russian influence is self-defense; Ukrainian nationalism proves fascism, while separatist nationalism proves self-determination. If your principles only apply when they benefit Russia, they're not principles of anti-imperialism or self-determination. They're geopolitical loyalties dressed up as universal principles.
The labeling isn't the point, I am using terms to describe existing processes.
The Kiev state upholds Stepan Bandera, a fascist Nazi collaborator, to the point of angering Poland. They also are destroying their soviet heritage, and as we know fascism is inherently anticommunist.
Regarding the will of western Ukraine to be dominated by imperialism, they can do so if they wish. They should not, however, believe that they are entitled to drag the entirety of the Donbass along with them into this suicidal endeavor. I respect western Ukraine's decision to become a vassal, just like I respect eastern Ukraine's decision to secede. The Donbass is not trying to prevent western Ukraine from further EU integration, they are trying to leave the far-right slide.
As for Russia assisting anti-fascists, I never denied that this is self-interested. Russia's security concerns are with NATO encroachment on its borders despite western assurances. Russia is not an imperialist country, because it utterly lacks the finance capital required to operate in such a manner, which is why their loan terms were so much better. I am not arguing that Russia is "good," I am arguing that they act with comprehendable logic.
As for your racist bits, I am referring to when you mentioned studying the "Russian people," painting them as evil inherently.
Since you accuse me of a double-standard, I'll clarify my views for you:
The EU, US, NATO, etc. are imperialist not merely because they influence other countries, but because their economies are run with the sole focus of pilfering global surplus value. Russia is economically more industrial and far less financialized, so while it does have regional security interests, it does not operate in the same predatory manner.
Western Ukraine indeed has the right to go closer to Europe and become vassals, to their own detriment. They do not have the right to drag Eastern Ukraine along with them.
The ties between western Ukrainian nationalism and fascism aren't simply because they are nationalists, but because they uphold Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator, oppress ethnic Russians, and target socialism and communism to serve western imperialist interests. The nationalism in Eastern Ukraine is a quest for sovereignty that does not rely on such backwards views.