NP [Re: GR: Who won the war?]

[Martin Dietze]

Joseph,

I don't really want to reopen our whole Ukraine discussion, but there are a few things here I can't leave standing.

"Coup” (which is as well-enough defined as “fascism") did not fit what happened in 2014 then, and it does not fit any better now. It was, however, the term Moscow adopted immediately and has repeated ever since. Ukraine has since had internationally recognised competitive elections including peaceful and civilised transfer of power - unlike Russia, where genuine electoral competition has long since disappeared.

As for the Donbas, reliable polling has become impossible in the parts occupied in 2014. However, immediately beforehand, in April 2014, 52% in both Donetsk and Luhansk opposed joining Russia; only 28% and 30% supported it. And just before the full-scale invasion, 84% in the Ukrainian-controlled parts of the Donbas still wanted Ukraine and Russia to remain separate states. This does not make your assumptions about the people of the Donbas very likely to be correct.

Minsk I and II were broken first, and most blatantly, by Russia and its proxies: Donetsk airport after Minsk I, and Debaltseve after Minsk II. Those were not minor technical violations but major military offensives.

What also strikes me is how closely your account follows the Russian state's own version of events.
Russia was never a neutral observer here. It was a participant with a very clear agenda. Given that - and given what we have already discussed about the authoritarian and recognisably fascistic features of contemporary Russia - I find it hard to see why that version should be accepted so readily when it conflicts with Ukrainian voices, international observers and a large body of independent reporting.
  

  

  
Cheers,

Martin 
  

  
On 2. October 2026 at 08:40:59, Joseph Tracy (coypoet at mailfence.com) wrote:
  
  
   
    
     
     
     
   
     
      On 10/1/26 5:09 PM, Martin Dietze wrote:  
      
  
     
  
      
     That passage on Big Brother is interesting, because Pynchon actually seems quite close there to the sort of definition I had in mind: charismatic dictatorship, control of behaviour, subordination of the individual to the collective, and so on. In other words, fairly concrete political characteristics rather than simply a synonym for brutality or state violence. At the same time, judging from the examples you collected (which I liked a lot, thank you!), he clearly also enjoys the word itself and sometimes throws it around rather more freely, polemically or ironically, when the context allows it.


JT- As the one who started this conversation I want to make it clear that I never defined fascism as simply state brutality, emphasizing the merging of corporate capitlism with state colonialism and militarism. As to subordination of the individual to the collective, control of behavior,  that has been a character of many religions, nations and empires. Big brother includes those plus technology of intense surveillance which has become a character of US Britain Germanyas much as say China. In the west it is merged with privatized surveillance technologies which is more in line with Musolini's version and he popularized the term.   


MD -Regarding "it takes two to tango", I think that is rather misleading in this case: Russia invaded Ukraine, so responsibility for starting the war is not symmetrical.



JT_ Ukraine invaded the Russian speaking majority of the Donbass who refused the illegitiate coup government in Kiev and later broke the Minsk accord they signed. People have a right to an elected government rather than a coup based government supported from abroad. The people of the Donbass asked for Russian support, fought alongside  Russia,  and later voted to leave Ukraine and affiliate with Russia. Journalists from England and Germany who have gone to the Donbass report that they are not living under coercion and have no desire to reunite with the Russophobic Ukrainian fascists who bombed and tortured them.   
      
     


  
      
     And yes, I think your final question is the important one: what do Ukrainians themselves want? In a KIIS survey from July–August 2026, 60% rejected handing over the whole Donbas even in return for Western security guarantees. That should probably carry more weight than what any of us outside Ukraine would prefer them to do.



That's why Ukrainian men are terrified to leave their house for fear of being forced into the army, why those who can afford it bribe their way out of service, why Zalensky refuses to allow elections or opposition press or political parties, why tens of thousands have fled the country why hundreds of thousands are dead, because they so desperately want the Donbass oblasts that they themselves  attacked and bomb. The Ukrainians in the Donbass and Crimea have already voted and fought and died to escape the fascists in Ukraine. All Zelensky has to do is stop attacking Russia and the war ends and they get to enjoy the benefits of wall street ownership and endless debt slavery. They will however have to survive without NATO nuclear bases which would provided such a security blanket under which to sing lullabyes to Bandera and snort synthetic cocaine. 

Every drone and missile Zelensky and Nato fires into Russia guarantees the death of more Ukrainians and the loss of more territory.