???

The far-right political fringe in Ukraine is tiny. Far-right parties are usually under 3 % of the popular vote nationally.

In 2019 the coalition of far-right parties (e.g. Svoboda, Right Sector, etc.) got just over 2% and clear the threshold for parliamentary representation… Svboda (the most well known) has a single seat right now iirc.

Sure, extremist militias such as Azov Battalion (or its successors) have included far-right activists and symbols.

However, “some far-right fighters exist” is not the same as “Ukraine is run by Nazis”.

The overwhelming majority of Ukrainians before and since 2022 reject far-right ideology.

What there was: A single spike in 2012, typically interpreted as protest votes against Yanukovych and his policies - with votes for the parties collapsing again once he was gone.

You took to abuse and a silly claim on a side thread… and you got a fitting response.

You are reading motives into my argument that aren’t there. I am not claiming europe is moral, has a mandate to police anyone, or deserves immunity from judgement. I am not trying to justify Iraq, Libya or Gaza, and I am not asking anyone to view those actions as lesser.

My only point is that political structures differ, and that this matters for understanding how states act and how their citizens can influence them. That’s not a moral hierarchy and not an excuse - just a factual distinction. If you reject the idea that internal political structure makes any difference at all, then we are working with entirely different premises.

At that stage there is no meaningful basis for comparison or discussion. I have stated my view and you disagree. OK.

Removed by mod

Nah, the guy clearly has an agenda and can’t control himself. I’m just trying to stay consistent.

You are treating any distinction I make as if it is an attempt to portray europe as moral. It is not. europe has taken part in serious crimes and carries responsibility for them.

My point is that political systems are not identical. Europe’s structures are too often captured by interests and often fail, but they still allow for leadership changes, court rulings, investigations and public pressure. Even in eastern europe elections have been re-run and parties banned after proven foreign interference. These mechanisms are limited, but they exist. Russia removes them entirely.

Acknowledging this difference is not excusing western actions. It’s also not claiming russia’s motives are justified. It’s just recognising that foreign policy, internal structure and accountability aren’t the same thing.

If your view is that any distinction is a double standard, then we are not working with the same categories, and there is no productive way to continue the comparison.

And back to the original theme - we don’t want nor need war in europe, but russia (a fully captured state) seems hell bent on bringing it. I suppose that when it eventually falls, it will fall hard.

I think you are also treating every western action as if europe personally designed it, when in reality europe’s record is more mixed. It has responsibility for serious failures, but in most recent cases it was not the main driver. Libya is one of the few examples where european governments pushed an intervention themselves. In lots of others, like iraq or afghanistan (or the US’s overall middle east approach), european states mostly followed the US out of strategic dependence rather than some unified desire to dominate the world. That does not make the outcomes less tragic, but it does mean europe isn’t operating on the same logic as russia, which treats territorial expansion as a central political project.

That’a why I separate western crimes from the structure of the political systems behind them. Europe has elections that can actually change governments, courts that can and sometimes do push back, space for journalists, and protests that occasionally work. None of this helped people in iraq or gaza, which is exactly why those policies deserve criticism, but it still gives european citizens real levers to pressure their own governments.

Russia superglues those levers in place. Opposition is criminalised, media is destroyed, and elections are for show. That is not a small difference. It affects what citizens can realistically do and how the state behaves both at home and abroad.

So for me it is not about excusing the west or pretending europe is ‘moral’. It is simply that western hypocrisy does not magically turn russia’s invasion into something justified or admirable. I can condemn Iraq, Libya, Gaza and still condemn a war aimed at erasing a neighbour. That is not loyalty to Europe, it is just refusing the idea that one set of atrocities cancels out another.

Western countries have absolutely earned a lot of the criticism they get. Iraq, Libya, and the good ol’ US of A’s approach to the Middle East are pretty glaring stains, and Israel’s conduct has raised (justified) outrage, enough that even its own leadership now faces ICC warrants. Europe isn’t some angelic bloc either; it’s just that it does have legal and political structures (ECHR, ICC support, actual protest cultures, real accountability mechanisms) that at least give people tools to contest state violence.

None of that makes Russian aggression suddenly noble. Pointing out Western hypocrisy doesn’t magically turn Putin into a principled anti-imperialist. He’s running an authoritarian system that jails dissent, murders critics and wages a war built on territorial revanchism complete with deliberately targeting civilians.

If I have to choose between flawed democracies with internal pressure valves, independent courts and protest movements… or authoritarian states that treat brutality as a virtue, then I’ll stick to pushing the countries and systems I’m actually part of to live up to their ideals.

Hypocrisy is a problem, but open militaristic authoritarianism is way worse. The answer to western failures isn’t to excuse someone else’s.

Trust me, nobody here is itching for a fight with russia. Most of us just want to live our lives without worrying about a bully neighbour driving tanks (or riding donkeys, heh) over borders.

Ukraine isn’t fighting because we asked them to or because we want them to. They’re fighting because they woke up to an invasion.

And we will continue to support them because if you let a country grab land by force (let alone reward them for it, witkoff you idiot), it won’t stop there. It makes the whole region less safe. So no, it’s not about wanting a war. It’s about trying to prevent a bigger one.

I engaged early on on Lemmy.ml out of curiosity. There is definitely interesting theory and history, and some genuinely learned folks lurking. Unfortunately, that is rarely what we get to see.

Is that why they cheer on authoritarian/dictatorial communism… we just need one good man/woman/AI in power, and all our problems will be solved. Then they dust off their hands after their thought triggers a tiny dopamine response (thereby confirming its truth), and they feel inspired to post another meme or to downvote a few people silly enough to engage with them by calling them libs or billionaires. 🤣

We probably shouldn’t feed them (and most definitely not after midnight…)

Big Beautiful Bill, obviously AI

Clearly the solution is to have one almighty military power, capable of enforcing peace in every corner of the world and in every living room. We could call it God Inc… or Musk Robotics… Let us outsource our humanity to a higher power, for surely it can’t do worse than petty wannabe dictators like putin and trump. Right? Right?

Ugh… maybe it’s easier to create a another silly meme instead. Perhaps with enough silly memes, we can change the world…

If I understand it right, the last time the democrats had a majority in both the house and senate was in Obama’s first two years. The ACA was the result of that, and it was still watered down due to pressure.

Without control of both houses, the dems are forced to heavily compromise to avoid government shutdowns and just to keep the USA plodding along, food on the table, and kids in school. Fighting just to end up with more or less the status quo was still better than the lurch to the right and insanity that is seen now.

I fear it’s too late for the US now though… at least without some military intervention come voting time. I’m sure they’ll be too busy though. It’s perversely still in china and russia’s interests to keep trump in power, and flare ups will almost certainly be well timed… as they say, never interrupt your enemy while they are busy making mistake after mistake after mistake.

It’s not perfectly aligned with your comment, I’ll give you that.

The republican party is still the best fit for space laser lady, only because it is the only party where conspiracy nutjobs stand a chance.

She doesn’t give a flip about fixing the republican party, but purely about her polling and chances in the future. That she is capable of this pivot suggests that there is more sleazy politician to her than nutjob. Neither is praiseworthy.

I did … and I am aware of additional reporting outside this article, that suggests she has ambitions beyond her current station.

Censorship / free speech is hard to get right, especially in the online world.

I’m for an individual standing on a pulpit and expressing their views, so long as they can be held to account. If they put the lives of others at risk, spread dangerous lies or harrass others unjustly, and there is legal recourse through an independent legal system(s) … no problem, because there are checks and balances. Many countries have a healthy foundation to support free speech.

OTOH, I am for restricting mis/dis-information campaigns by governments (also my own), corporations, special interest groups, and billionaires. We know it’s possible to effectively manipulate people and it’s really just another form of psychological warfare. The challenge is how to police such things (and when/what/how to educate/censor/fine/ban), with so much money and influence working against it … all without infringing on citizen’s rights.

It is nothing new to her. Like many/most politicians, she is an opportunist. She found a way to make it into the house, and now she has other ambitions, she is looking for another way to achieve that.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the russian influenced far right talking point feeds (and indirect but related funding) aren’t influencing this change too.

Nah… she wants a future political career outside the house, but apparently the crazy laser woman game only works in her current district of burn-the-world-down rednecks…

Now that she helped set the world on fire and the polls are in, she’ll change tack like an everyday boring sleazy politician.

There is surely enough waterfront real estate going for bargain basement prices these days. Make a deal, donnie t.