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.
All Ukrainian regions have voted for Ukrainian independence in the 1991 referendum. All the way until 2014 there wasn't actually any relevant pro-independence movement in Crimea or Donbas, until the Russian soldiers showed up, and dictated the course of events, of course.
How about if trucks full of soldiers without uniform crossed the border from Mexico to go on a sunny vacation, and decided on the spur of the moment to help their new friends out by imposing martial law and holding sham elections and shooting down airliners?
> No, I think the people of these regions should have been allowed to decide their own fate, which then should be internationally recognized.
This means that Russia needs to go back to its border and free and fair elections need to be held, in accordance with the country’s constitution. Right? You realise that Russia leaving the country is a pre-requisite for the people to vote freely? Unless you count what we’ve seen in Crimea, in the Donbas and in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts as somehow free and fair. You know, when the ballot boxes were brought to each house by armed Russian soldiers with tanks on the streets.
> But this would have at least been a viable path forward in 2014.
2014 was when Putin put everything in motion, having spent the previous years setting it up. If you think that anything reasonable could happen under Yanukovich, well, you were not paying attention.
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.
All Ukrainian regions have voted for Ukrainian independence in the 1991 referendum. All the way until 2014 there wasn't actually any relevant pro-independence movement in Crimea or Donbas, until the Russian soldiers showed up, and dictated the course of events, of course.
How about if trucks full of soldiers without uniform crossed the border from Mexico to go on a sunny vacation, and decided on the spur of the moment to help their new friends out by imposing martial law and holding sham elections and shooting down airliners?
> No, I think the people of these regions should have been allowed to decide their own fate, which then should be internationally recognized.
This means that Russia needs to go back to its border and free and fair elections need to be held, in accordance with the country’s constitution. Right? You realise that Russia leaving the country is a pre-requisite for the people to vote freely? Unless you count what we’ve seen in Crimea, in the Donbas and in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts as somehow free and fair. You know, when the ballot boxes were brought to each house by armed Russian soldiers with tanks on the streets.
> But this would have at least been a viable path forward in 2014.
2014 was when Putin put everything in motion, having spent the previous years setting it up. If you think that anything reasonable could happen under Yanukovich, well, you were not paying attention.