3 ms·
I don’t believe I’ve ever advocated for that viewpoint. I’ve only been speaking about Crimea, and in that case, Russia is very clearly the aggressor. Yes, there
by jeffdn 5y ago
I don’t believe I’ve ever advocated for that viewpoint. I’ve only been speaking about Crimea, and in that case, Russia is very clearly the aggressor. Yes, there are historical complexities, there is regional context. It is not cut and dry, black and white. At the end of the day, however, regardless of the ethnic makeup of Crimea, it was sovereign Ukrainian territory, seized in violation of international law and norms.
I don’t live in Eastern Europe, or anywhere near it. I have nuanced opinions about international affairs, and I’ll readily acknowledge that the United States and its NATO allies have done more than their share of bad in this world, including sponsoring multiple coup d’etats.
I just think that in this case, on balance, Ukraine is the aggrieved party.
- pphysch 5y agoClaiming that Russia is the unilateral aggressor in 2014 is a crystal clear exposition of the naive "Russia bad" worldview that selectively omits crucial details. If Ukraine had any semblance of "sovereignty" post-USSR, it was totally crushed by NATO's 2014 coup. Recognizing the unpredictable hybrid aggression of NATO, Russia decisively reinforced its long-standing strategic position on Crimea and the Black Sea. It was fundamentally a defensive, pragmatic reaction forced by NATO's aggression. You can see similar narratives regarding the recent military escalation in the region. Ukraine unilaterally declared an intent to militarily invade Crimea, and Russia mobilized forces on the border as a reaction. Yet the Western media totally ignored the virtual declaration of war by Ukraine and painted Russia once again as the sole aggressor. Fortunately, Russia was able to deescalate the situation. Yes, Ukraine as a sovereign nation is the aggrieved party. But the aggressor is NATO!