I also think it’s pretty hypocritical the way you speak of Ukraine. The 2013/2014 events as a western backed coup is just not true. There was an enormous domestic protest of hundreds of thousands, a lot of which died during their protests because of a state crackdown lead by Yanukovych. When they kept pushing he literally fled the country TO RUSSIA where he is now hanging out with bashar al assad probably at some swanky resort because he’s never been anything but a Russian puppet. Now you can criticize Ukraine on how it used its procedures to remove Yanukovych and maybe that was questionable. You can debate the west or the EU had strategic investments in Ukraine, sure. But calling it a western led coup delegitimizes the sovereignty of Ukrainians who ultimately decide how the hell their government should and will function.
I see this all the time with marxist, socialist, etc folk here on Lemmy. Their analysis of the United States in comparison to China or Russia is lopsided.
It's your analysis that's lopsided here, and mine that's balanced. The overthrow of the central government involved some degree of genuine support by the people and some degree of foreign backing and control. The overthrow of the regional governments also involved some degree of genuine support by the people and some degree of foreign backing and control. However, when the West does it, it's simply providing aid to the genuine will of the people, but when Russia does it, it's an imperialist ploy to control the region.
I am perfectly happy to apply the same standard in both cases, it's you who's applying a double standard. On what basis should I determine that the Western-backed movement in western Ukraine is more legitimate than the Russian-backed movement in the east? It's utter nonsense.
I don't see how Yanukovych fleeing to Russia retroactively delegitimizes him. He was overthrown by a Western-backed movement, so it's fairly natural. Edward Snowden fled to Russia after being declared an enemy of the state by the US. When the shah of Iran was overthrown, he fled to the US. And if Yanukovych's crackdowns justified his overthrow, then why is it that when the new government outlawed a bunch of opposition parties, that somehow didn't justify the separatists' actions?
Incidentally, there was a leaked phone call from the state department hand-picking who should wind up in power from Euromaidan, and wouldn't you know it, their picks were the ones who did.
You’re suggesting they don’t genuinely oppose their government because their opposition doesn’t result in change of the state. But when Ukraine does, you’re inclined to interpret their actions as if it was solely a foreign power than the agency of it’s citizens.
Is it even possible to not interpret Ukrainian opposition to the state as influenced by a foreign power? Either you interpret the actions against the previous government in the west that way, or you do so for the separatists in the east. I suppose you could take the position that neither side is foreign-backed, but I don't think anyone does, because it would be kind of absurd.
I never claimed that either of those factions was being solely controlled by a foreign power, by the way. As I said, there is some genuine support and some foreign influence in both cases, and I'm merely saying that I don't see a reason to treat one side as more legitimate than the other.
Also, the material conditions in Ukraine are just different, because Ukraine does not have a massive overseas empire like the US does. It's apples and oranges. I don't call for opposing the US state just because it's a state, but because of the giant militaristic empire oppressing the global poor.
Democracy creates mechanisms which ordinary people can influence state policy even if those mechanisms are imperfect.
Ha! And what mechanisms are those, exactly? I was given a binary choice between two parties, both of which supported the Palestinian genocide, both of which supported an aggressive stance against China, both of which opposed lifting sanctions against North Korea or similar countries, etc. When I voted for a third party that actually represented my interests but had no chance of winning, I received constant criticism for it and was accused of being a secret Trump supporter.
Or tell me, which major presidential candidate did not want to continue pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure into conquering Afghanistan for 20 years? Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, and Clinton were all 100% in favor them, despite their unpopularity. As I said, part of the reason for Trump's success was appearing to be an outsider to that bipartisan consensus, but then he of course continued the war in Afghanistan and even started another one in Iran. The ruling class will never allow you to vote away the war machine.
Our elections are not democratic, by design. A handful of immensely wealthy people, the ruling class, can pour massive amounts of money into them with no regulation. The two major parties have no requirement to provide a free and fair primary process and are perfectly within their rights to rig them or just hand pick whatever candidate they like. Congress consistently operates with an approval rating below 20%.
Once again, we see your double standard at play. When the US has such factors compromising our elections, it's exceptional, it's because of foreign money, etc. But Russia and China have elections too, and when there are issues with those elections, they don't get any sort of excuses, they are simply rotten to their core, fundamentally undemocratic. It's because I don't make exceptions in my analysis of the US that you see my analysis as biased and unfair, because you don't realize your own bias.