The existing bourgeois state doesn’t negate the reality of a liberation struggle. Through the struggle the bourgeois state must be shed if it is not able to protect the nation. Frankly if one camp of the bourgeoisie decides to defend the nation that doesn’t mean a liberation struggle isn’t underway, it just means it has not developed to the point where the bourgeoisie should be tossed aside. Every Liberation struggle has had a split bourgeoisie.
If there was no class interest, Russia wouldn’t be doing it. Posing anything else is literally a rejection of class analysis and Marxism in general.
The bourgeois state isn’t absolute, this is something we like to forget it seems. The bourgeois state exists within a delicate balance of the state acting in class interests, and the strength of the state. This situation the Russian population is overwhelmingly supportive of the Donbas, as noted by the Communist Party, so if the state failed to defend Donbas, it would have looked too weak to defend Russia. This would have put the state itself into crisis. Does this mean a section of the bourgeoisie is fighting for its own existence, yes of course, but this doesn’t mean they haven’t been pushed into a concession by the toiling masses.
Not to mention this mischaracterizes the Donbass struggle itself severely. The Donbass Republics were literally praised by Russian nationalists for their extreme libertarian character.
Evidence? How could it possibly be more “libertarian” than Ukraine proper which cut social spending across the board and privatized land for an IMF deal. I’m sure Donbas pensioners captured the government buildings for their Libertarianism, talk about ignoring class interests.
The existing bourgeois state doesn’t negate the reality of a liberation struggle. Through the struggle the bourgeois state must be shed if it is not able to protect the nation. Frankly if one camp of the bourgeoisie decides to defend the nation that doesn’t mean a liberation struggle isn’t underway, it just means it has not developed to the point where the bourgeoisie should be tossed aside. Every Liberation struggle has had a split bourgeoisie.
The bourgeois state isn’t absolute, this is something we like to forget it seems. The bourgeois state exists within a delicate balance of the state acting in class interests, and the strength of the state. This situation the Russian population is overwhelmingly supportive of the Donbas, as noted by the Communist Party, so if the state failed to defend Donbas, it would have looked too weak to defend Russia. This would have put the state itself into crisis. Does this mean a section of the bourgeoisie is fighting for its own existence, yes of course, but this doesn’t mean they haven’t been pushed into a concession by the toiling masses.
Evidence? How could it possibly be more “libertarian” than Ukraine proper which cut social spending across the board and privatized land for an IMF deal. I’m sure Donbas pensioners captured the government buildings for their Libertarianism, talk about ignoring class interests.