5 ms·

You seem to presume I am in favour of Chechnya's independence. Not sure why. Either way, the two situations could hardly be more different: Chechnya (for bette

You seem to presume I am in favour of Chechnya's independence. Not sure why. Either way, the two situations could hardly be more different: Chechnya (for better or worse) had a completely home-grown, self-financed separatist government that fought independently of any third party, certainly in the first war when it didn't even have support by rag-tag groups of foreign Islamists, who came later. Donbass was an invasion by Russia in August 2014, preceded by six months of an astroturfed separatist rebellion by its own proxies, not only initiated by a group of Russian citizens led by Strelkov, but also fully financed, armed, and partially manned by Russia. When this astroturfed rebellion was failing and Ukraine was about to take control of its border, Russia invaded with its own regular troops (twice actually, once in August 2014 and then again in January/February 2015).

thriftwy 5y ago
I don't care what you are in favour of. I'm just saying that the outlook of Chechen insurgency in the western world was very positive, and after that (combined with Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan) they've lost any moral stance to complain about any other insurgencies. As one dude, whom I don't even really like, said: "Who are you to f... lecture me?" The difference between Chechen and Donbass insurgencies is multi-faceted, but the point stands.
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  I don't think the point stands because of the differences, though. Ukraine's "insurgency" is not really an insurgency, it's an invasion. You can make an argument that a lot of insurgencies are supported from the outside, but a) you can't say that about Chechnya, and b) the one in Donbass wasn't just supported from the outside, it was initiated, armed, financed, manned from one outside country. So on a kind of insurgency gradient where on one side you have people rising up against central government for grievances real or imagined, and on the other side a pure invasion by another country with a very thin veneer of "insurgency" just to cover things up, Chechnya and Donbass are on the opposite ends, and places like Iraq and Afghanistan somewhere in the shadier middle (e.g. Iran's support for Shia militias in Iraq, Pakistan's support for the Taliban). Insurgencies happen. Civil wars happen. Although intervention in them is often driven by geopolitical interests, it's hard for countries in the free world to justify doing so without other rationales, e.g. terrorism, genocide, etc. No such problem exists for countries like Russia, run by authoritarian imperialists. They intervene early and often, and also create fake 'insurgencies' to invade without committing.
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    In Donbass the sentiment for the insurgency was clearly existing, these regions were different culturally and they really wanted to follow Crimea suit and escape from increasingly unstable and nationalist Ukraine. I agree that means for the insurgency were supplied from Russia, and that these regions would probably not take the bait did they know that the Russia will abandon them hanging in the limbo instead of Crimea scenario. The justification for Libya was really crappy and for Afghanistan it was nonexistent so the difference is moot anyway. Large countries use force, that's that.

thriftwy 5y ago

I don't care what you are in favour of. I'm just saying that the outlook of Chechen insurgency in the western world was very positive, and after that (combined with Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan) they've lost any moral stance to complain about any other insurgencies. As one dude, whom I don't even really like, said: "Who are you to f... lecture me?" The difference between Chechen and Donbass insurgencies is multi-faceted, but the point stands.

kspacewalk2 5y ago
I don't think the point stands because of the differences, though. Ukraine's "insurgency" is not really an insurgency, it's an invasion. You can make an argument that a lot of insurgencies are supported from the outside, but a) you can't say that about Chechnya, and b) the one in Donbass wasn't just supported from the outside, it was initiated, armed, financed, manned from one outside country. So on a kind of insurgency gradient where on one side you have people rising up against central government for grievances real or imagined, and on the other side a pure invasion by another country with a very thin veneer of "insurgency" just to cover things up, Chechnya and Donbass are on the opposite ends, and places like Iraq and Afghanistan somewhere in the shadier middle (e.g. Iran's support for Shia militias in Iraq, Pakistan's support for the Taliban). Insurgencies happen. Civil wars happen. Although intervention in them is often driven by geopolitical interests, it's hard for countries in the free world to justify doing so without other rationales, e.g. terrorism, genocide, etc. No such problem exists for countries like Russia, run by authoritarian imperialists. They intervene early and often, and also create fake 'insurgencies' to invade without committing.
- thriftwy 5y ago
  In Donbass the sentiment for the insurgency was clearly existing, these regions were different culturally and they really wanted to follow Crimea suit and escape from increasingly unstable and nationalist Ukraine. I agree that means for the insurgency were supplied from Russia, and that these regions would probably not take the bait did they know that the Russia will abandon them hanging in the limbo instead of Crimea scenario. The justification for Libya was really crappy and for Afghanistan it was nonexistent so the difference is moot anyway. Large countries use force, that's that.