Not at all. I had been arguing with sunny jim over whether the Kiev government represents the state in western ukraine turning fascist (a claim he made with CR like confidence). Just because I said it wasn't fascist doesn't mean I don't think there is anything to worry about (there is and I do). If I didn't think there was anything to worry about, or if I thought the Kiev government was really ok I would have said so. Do I need to end every post with a qualification that says I don't like the Kiev regime? Aren't my previous posts on this thread (which you can easily view via search function) sufficient?
So, now i've finally been able to actually look at the row you'd had with sunny jim and within that context I have to say I'm with him.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/goto/post?id=13094318#post-13094318
The way the coup took place, the appointment of Yarosh (irrelevant that he then later relinquished the post - probably stepped down so he can now go on to do enough damage outside the legal framework), the push east with the military, national guard/right sector ultras bussed in and, most importantly the deathly silence from anyone in the current kiev regime voicing any opposition to the military engagment on Ukrainian citizens (pro russian or not), all hurriedly done before any elections. All this should giveus enough of an indication on how this "fascist involved" government is operating.
I'll call it fascist how ever much I like and no vocabulary pedantry will alter that. So let's just agree to disagree.
That's an interesting question and the kind of thing I think we should be discussing (shame lovedetective hasn't been able to post more on this thread cos he really knows his stuff when it comes to this). There's two ways of looking at it I suppose. I guess we could have an abstract academic discussion over whether he fits the various competing definitions of fascism.
Good, so we are in agreement that the head of the military is a fascist.
He was appointed that position by a spineless neo-liberal cunt without a whisper of opposition gfrom his cronies that also took seats - The fact that they werent even elected and, the legitimacy of this government being highly questionable, just rubs salt into all the open wounds of the "electorate" in the east of the country.
You may want to call Yatsenyuk a neo-liberal but he'll remain fully accountable for this appointment and subsequest actions. I find it fully justifiable to brand him a de-facto fascist (puppet or not).
But in case anyone is uncertain, I think the Kiev government are a bunch of cunts - neoliberals and far right cunts - as are those who have backed them via the EU, US foreign office and NATO. What I do take issue with is the uncritical way in which the other 'side' is viewed. For example, butchers just posted an uncropped version photo cr posted of that march. Beside the antifascist banner was a monarchist banner - a far right banner. It's not good guys vs bad guys. We need to get beyond these binaries and work out what's really going off.
After a serious look at what both sides represent people may choose still to take sides - but at least they'd be doing it from an informed position. I might decide (though I think it unlikely) that the pro-Russian side is worthy of support. But I'm definitely not going to do that while I don't know the facts and there are aspects of the pro-Russian side that are deeply worrying. The uncritical reposting of RT propaganda really doesn't help with that - it's people talking with an air of authority, as if they've taken an objective view, when really they're regurgitating what they saw on the Putin's propaganda mouthpiece.
I agree with most of that although I'd say the jury's still out on the "monarchist" flag thing. The symbology of the anti-kiev folk is nowhere near as disturbing as the wolfsangels, white power and SS symbols of the last days of the maiden (the uprising) IMO.
Yesterday this was sprayed on the Union building enterance. Kind of eery:
