Thanks for suggesting the additional reading.

In my comment I was trying simply to critique the posted video.

The speaker seems to reject the understanding of solar punk as strictly an aesthetic, but her deeper representation seems as simply a capture of contemporary anarcho-communism. The apparent contradiction exposes a dilemma, of whether solar punk offers novel concepts but all in the form of aesthetic, versus its simply being a new packaging of preexisting concepts.

I feel we have yet to be offered any new concepts beyond mere aesthetic.

The emphasis on implementing slow living and adapting indigenous practices seems particularly aligned with the spirit of solar punk, but they also are not novel to its development.

I naturally agree with the basic premise that the issue is oil not drugs.

I question that deficit spending is either threatening or threatened within the US. Further, I find it a tenuous case that US companies are not eager to restore the control of Venezuelan oil that they maintained preceding nationalization, such eagerness being more than sufficient to account for the motives of US action against Venezuela.

I repeat that Russia wants not simply to dismantle US imperialism, but also would establish itself as hegemon at any opportunity, however absurdly remote such possibility may seem. Thus, defending Russia is an error.

I agree that NATO and the US carry tremendous responsibility, and that the best outcome from the present would be territorial concession as a condition for both sides concluding belligerence.

Russia is motivated not simply by dismantling the imperial core, but by becoming hegemonic. The imperial periphery would gain nothing by trading one overseas hegemon for another.

The alternative, literally, is the working class developing power.

Russian expansion may seem appealing because US expansion is problematic, but Russian expansion is problematic all the same.

Even if the weakening of US hegemony hastens the advent of socialism, atrocities against civilian populations in no way resembles the world we want to build.

I think it is a difficult case that the invasion was a net benefit in overall humanitarian terms.

The invasion occurred suddenly, without any final demands articulated to avoid war.

NATO expansion was a cause. Russian expansion was a cause. I oppose both, and take issue with the campist position of denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.

It is a mistake to divide the world by bad states versus good states. We can sympathize with workers oppressed by Ukraine, but our side should not be Russia. Our side is the international workers of the world.

At issue is whether to support the invasion, and whether the reasons for such support validate denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.

The situation for some may have improved, or be hoped to improve, as a consequence of the invasion, but the overarching calamity across the region overshadows such particular gains. The overall humanitarian situation unequivocally has deteriorated due to the invasion.

We need to be careful with terms. “Ethnically suppressed” is vague. Russian-speaking Ukrainians were not selected for internment or elimination. Ethnic cleansing certainly seems an inappropriate allegation. What was the experience that made resistance worth the cost?

Also, fascism has a particular meaning. Ukraine has fascist militias. The regime is reactionary, installed through a coup, and a puppet of the US. All are alarming, but also common throughout the world, and their convergence still does not amount to the regime being fascist.

Is acknowledging that Russia has committed atrocities incompatible with acknowledging that Russian-speaking groups may have legitimate grievances about rule by Ukraine?

You can’t read.

Russian-speaking groups in Ukraine certainly may have legitimate grievances. Whether they were worth a prolonged conflict is questionable. Most of the bloodshed could have been avoided by such groups accepting the terms of rule by Ukraine, despite their grievances. They would not be fully satisfied, but also not be bombarded by shelling. The conflict is a civil war, not ethnic cleansing.

Regardless, Russia is not liberatory. Life under Russian rule for Russian-speaking groups in the contested regions would be oppressive just as life is oppressive generally for Russians, and even if life for such groups is oppressive under rule by Ukraine. The situation in the contested regions was invoked as an excuse to garner popular support for the invasion, and helping the population was not authentically a motive.

Framing Russia as humanitarian or liberatory is absurd, and defending its atrocities is disgusting.

Ukraine represses separatist movements, just like Russia and every other state.

How does it bear on Russia having committed atrocities?

World War II was big bomb go bad boom.

I am very intelligent.

What word do you need sounded out?

Identifying a few factions, dates, and names of the events would be a solid way to respond to a request for clarification.

Do you describe the Second World War as “bad thing where people died”, or could you think of more details that elucidate the events?

Who are my heroes?

Regardless, please clarify “the campaign of ethnic cleansing”.

Both sides of the conflict are indictable, but atrocities cannot be excused on the same basis as war.

Please clarify “13,000 Ukranian civilians murdered by their own government”. Casualties in conflict are not murder, much less murder committed by the “by their own government”, even if the conflict could have been avoided.

There are fascists in Russia, too. Russia and Putin strongly express elements of fascism. Putin does not care about Nazis in Ukraine. They were invoked as an excuse to justify the invasion.

Your apologetics for atrocities is really disgusting.

Whoever has power is bound eventually to use it unwisely and unvirtuously.

Much more than the individuals who wield power, the problem is the systems of consolidated power.

Many believe that states and billionaires are mutually antagonistic, despite that fact that they share broadly the same interests.