What happened to the Crimea bridge and why is it important?
What happened to the Crimea bridge and why is it important?
The bridge suffered damage after one of its sections was blown up, killing two people and wounding a child.
Traffic on the single bridge that links Russia to Moscow-annexed Crimea and serves as a key supply route for the Kremlin’s forces in the war with Ukraine came to a standstill on Monday after one of its sections was blown up, killing a couple and wounding their daughter.
The RBC Ukraine news agency reported that explosions were heard on the bridge, with Russian military bloggers reporting two strikes.
RBC Ukraine and another Ukrainian news outlet Ukrainska Pravda said the attack was planned jointly by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian navy, and involved sea drones.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Russia chose all of this.
No one else. Russia.
And?
And so it is on Russia to leave. You bring up Russian laws like the Ukrainians are not sovereign. They gave their own laws. You know what else was legal? The Holocaust was legal under German law. That didn't make it right. I hope you can understand that this is why people consider Russia a fascist state right now and yes, it does matter. Your arguments are textbook fascist and you should take that into serious consideration.
You've missed the point. They can't, because the law prevents it.
Don't mistake that for a value judgement about those laws because it's not. I am just acknowledging the political reality, which is something you categorically have to do in order to reach a conclusion in these matters.
You can call me a fascist all you want but the only person between the two of us that is supporting more bloodshed is you and your nationalism. I'm not a nationalist.
You literally don't know what fascism is and I challenge you to define it. Then we can determine if I've missed the point. Fascism is always legal. It is always backed by law. It must be by definition or it seeks to be. If your society cannot stop an ethically motivated war that you started because the law prevents it, that is fascism.
Fascism is a reaction to leftist power in any given country it arises in. That's why we call them reactionaries.
Fascism occurs when leftist growth in a country grows to the point at which it threatens to overthrow the bourgeoisie's ruling class power. When this threat arises the bourgeoisie fund ultranationalist elements within nations in order to build a force that can be used for ultra-violence in the pursuit of killing off the leftist threat.
Fascism differs depending on national character. Fascism in Germany was not the same as fascism in Italy or fascism in Spain, Chile, Japan or India. But it often has certain characteristics of ultranationalism and the supremacy of certain groups, but not always. Ultimate fascism is anything that it has to be in order to get power and use ultraviolence which is why describing it in absolute terms is difficult. This is why fascism is more aptly characterised by what it is in reaction to rather than anything else.
In short. Fascism is like the white blood cell of capitalism, it arises when the "infection" of socialists threatens to overthrow it.
When the "infection" is over, it then ends, morphing back into regular capitalism. We can see that this occurs by looking at the countries where fascism was not defeated, where fascism won. In both Spain and Chile fascism did not become something unique from capitalism, it is a part of capitalism, and when it had eradicated the threat of socialism it was then changed by its ruling class back into neoliberalism, which is a more efficient means of wealth extraction from the population.
So, your definition of fascism is state power to counter the left. My definition is how the fascists define it; how you are currently defining your society. Think on that. Do some actual research into historic fascist arguments. I'm not advocating for them, I'm saying you should see some parallels.
Your definition is what? Sorry I don't think "how the fascists define it" is a very clear definition when they all define it completely differently depending on the place.
A definition should be universally applicable, that's what makes something a definition. It makes something definitive. If a description of something is not universally applicable then it is not succeeding at being definitive.
This is why those of us define fascism in terms of what it is a reaction to, it is significantly more definitive because there is not a single instance of fascism where this is untrue. There is a reason the poem starts with "First they came for the communists".
The phrase starts with that but includes a lot more because fascism crops up during times of uncertainty and instability. So too does other radical ideas. The definition I put forward is a universal one. Defining an ideology as being against something else is not an ideology. It would be no better than saying that anarchists are defined as being antifascist. It simply shows you don't understand what they believe.
If you don't understand what they believe, you cannot understand why it is bad. Suddenly you are justifying the invasions of sovereign countries on ethnic lines and here we are.
You are being evasive. I already asked you to write a definition that includes all fascists.
Defining an ideology as being against something else is not an ideology.
It most certainly can be when that's what it is. Fascism is not uniquely different to capitalism, it has proven that wherever it has won it just morphs back into liberalism. Its only unique characteristic is that it is capitalism with the ability to perform ultraviolence against its political enemies.
It would be no better than saying that anarchists are defined as being antifascist. It simply shows you don’t understand what they believe.
Not when you can define anarchists through other means. Such as the fact that they want an immediate stateless society. If you could actually define fascism through other means then we wouldn't be having this conversation.