Comment by para_parolu
2 years ago
That happens in 2014 when Ukraine lost Crimea. They accepted it and lived on. There is zero safety guarantees for them.
2 years ago
That happens in 2014 when Ukraine lost Crimea. They accepted it and lived on. There is zero safety guarantees for them.
Ukraine has been fighting Russia for nearly a decade, with active if low-level warfare in the Donbass region the entire time. I wouldn't exactly call that "accept[ing] it and liv[ing] on."
From about 2017 the war was very low-level, limited to some artillery duels. And those duels weren't entirely Ukrainian choice, if Russia shoots at you, you can't just ignore it.
Remember when the local "insurrection" to kijev marched into the theater in kherson because they thought it the regional governments office. For all their propaganda multitudes fines online, they are just lethal clowns on the ground, unable to innovate, because bound by puppeteer strings. Ukraine will win. Moscovia will fall apart once again.
Empires die and vanish all the time.
Not quite! The immediate history here plays a huge role in where we're at today. In the 2014 the US backed a [coup, revolution, insurrection - whatever you want to call it] in Ukraine that saw their democratically elected pro-Russian President overthrown. Numerous Ukrainian territories that also leaned pro-Russia refused to recognize the new government and declared their independence, the Donbas region and Crimea among them.
For the 8 years from 2014 to 2022 Ukraine was intermittently attacking and shelling these breakaway territories (excepting Crimea, which had become part of Russia) which were (and are) largely populated with ethnic Russians, and Russia was "secretly" protecting them. This led to a series of treaties, The Minsk Accords [1], to try to arrange peace between Russia and Ukraine, and give the breakaway territories some sort of special status while remaining under Ukraine.
These treaties were always violated. And while this was happening Ukraine was increasingly fortifying and arming itself, as well as seeking to join NATO - which NATO was, sincerely or not, indulging. This all really set the stage for where we are today. It also sets the stage for where we're going tomorrow, because the inability to maintain any sort of a peace over these regions is going to make obtaining a 'minimally unfavorable' settlement for Ukraine, over this war, much more difficult.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
None if this is true. For example, the "pro-Russian President" wasn't overthrown. At Russian pressure, he ditched a very favorable trade agreement with the EU that would've opened up many new business opportunities for Ukrainians. When protesters assembled, he ordered police snipers to shoot at them, killing 108 people. He fled to Russia the next day and Ukraine's parliament voted to remove him from office, and scheduled new elections, which were held three months later.
Wiki has a surprisingly good timeline of the event. [1] Even the identity of the snipers has, again, a quite reasonable page on Wiki. [2] You might want to at least add in the whole thing about "protesters" shooting at police officers to try to escalate the conflict, occupying government buildings and seizing substantial quantities of weapons, Western cities (which tend to be very pro-EU and anti-Russia for those not familiar with the geography of Ukraine) spontaneously refusing to acknowledge the President's authority, and ultimately the military as well.
Even the end of it all was quite odd. There was a settlement agreed upon, but far right types refused to accept anything short of the President's ouster, and the government was then subsequently directly threatened by the now in control "protesters". Following said threats riot police and others that were guarding the presidential compound "vanished." [3] And it was in this context that Yanukovych fled. Had he not, he probably would have been killed.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Detailed...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidan_casualties#Identity_of_...
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Agreemen...
3 replies →
You’re telling the false version of these events spread by the Russian state propaganda.
> US backed a [coup, revolution, insurrection - whatever you want to call it] in Ukraine
People of Ukraine did the revolution. The western backing you’re talking about was limited to vague verbal expressions of support.
> territories that also leaned pro-Russia refused to recognize the new government and declared their independence
That only happened on the territories invaded by the Russians.
Crimea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_occupation_of_Crimea#H...
Eastern Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin#Sloviansk
> People of Ukraine did the revolution. The western backing you’re talking about was limited to vague verbal expressions of support.
Obviously no revolution can happen without popular dissatisfaction and massive popular support for an alternative. But I think the Nuland-Pyatt call leak firmly puts to bed the notion that US involvement was 'limited to vague verbal expressions of support.'
3 replies →
So do you think all of Russia's annexations should be recognised by the international community?
No, I think the people of these regions should have been allowed to decide their own fate, which then should be internationally recognized. This is, of course, impossible now because the war means that the demographics have shifted substantially and irreversibly. But this would have at least been a viable path forward in 2014. The problem is that nobody wants this sort of democracy unless they like the answer they're going to get.
Like imagine if in 2020 the January 6th rioters had somehow managed to overthrow the government and get Trump in office again. It would seem, to me, perfectly reasonable for e.g. California to then say 'No thank you.' and refuse to acknowledge his authority. That probably would have led to a civil war but if you're asking what I think - it's that people in such scenarios (which, granted, are not so easy to define) ought be allowed to decide their own fate.
3 replies →