6 ms·

The legitimate government of Ukraine was toppled in a coup in 2014. Russians would argue they are defending the interests of Russians in Ukraine. The split of U

The legitimate government of Ukraine was toppled in a coup in 2014. Russians would argue they are defending the interests of Russians in Ukraine. The split of Ukraine from Russia is like Scotland or Wales splitting from the UK. The name Ukraine literally means borderland of Russia, like Wales means borderland of England. Thus there is a strong case to be made that the conflict, particularly in eastern Ukraine, is more like a civil war or intervention in a civil war following a coup of the legitimate government than an unprovoked act of aggression. If the January 6 protests seized the capitol in 2020 and declared themselves the new government would that be seen as legitimate? If Canada assisted northern states in opposition to the January 6 movement would it be considered an aggressive foreign invasion? It is true Hitler was also a nationalist. However the comparison of every subsequent conflict to 1930s Germany is trite and tired. It doesn't make sense when you look at the facts. For one thing Putin's Russia is not motivated by a theory of ethnic superiority. Many peoples divided by artificial or arbitrary political boundaries have sought to be re-united or established as an independent nation at various times. The partition of India, the Kosovo conflict, and the re-unification of Germany after the fall of the Berlin wall all come to mind. It is unclear why nationalism in Western Ukraine is portrayed as legitimate but nationalism in Eastern Ukraine is not.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> The legitimate government of Ukraine was toppled in a coup in 2014. And there was another legitimate government formed immediately afterwards, based on the results of the subsequent 2014 election, and then again in 2019. Or were those governments not legitimate, because Russia stopped people in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk from taking part in the election process? Hopefully you can see why that is a very self-serving definition of "legitimate". > is more like a civil war or intervention in a civil war Without wanting to introduce any whataboutist tangents, I will agree that foreign nations picking a side in a civil war is a very ethically and legally dubious form of military policy, but Russia hasn't said it wants the side it's backing to invade Kyiv and reinstate the "legitimate" government. This is more like the American South deciding to secede over "states' rights" and Russia giving military support to the Confederacy. > It is unclear why nationalism in Western Ukraine is portrayed as legitimate but nationalism in Eastern Ukraine is not. Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation, and even Putin used to accept that fact. What you call "nationalism in Western Ukraine" is just a sovereign nation wishing to maintain its sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is almost the defining characteristic of what a sovereign nation is. By contrast, the separatists in the eastern part of Ukraine are not, and have never been sovereign, so their "nationalism" is only legitimate up to the internationally accepted right of "self-determination", which specifically does not include independent sovereignty, and certainly doesn't include a right to wage a civil war against the sovereign government whose territory they want to claim.

dane-pgp 5y ago

> The legitimate government of Ukraine was toppled in a coup in 2014. And there was another legitimate government formed immediately afterwards, based on the results of the subsequent 2014 election, and then again in 2019. Or were those governments not legitimate, because Russia stopped people in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk from taking part in the election process? Hopefully you can see why that is a very self-serving definition of "legitimate". > is more like a civil war or intervention in a civil war Without wanting to introduce any whataboutist tangents, I will agree that foreign nations picking a side in a civil war is a very ethically and legally dubious form of military policy, but Russia hasn't said it wants the side it's backing to invade Kyiv and reinstate the "legitimate" government. This is more like the American South deciding to secede over "states' rights" and Russia giving military support to the Confederacy. > It is unclear why nationalism in Western Ukraine is portrayed as legitimate but nationalism in Eastern Ukraine is not. Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation, and even Putin used to accept that fact. What you call "nationalism in Western Ukraine" is just a sovereign nation wishing to maintain its sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is almost the defining characteristic of what a sovereign nation is. By contrast, the separatists in the eastern part of Ukraine are not, and have never been sovereign, so their "nationalism" is only legitimate up to the internationally accepted right of "self-determination", which specifically does not include independent sovereignty, and certainly doesn't include a right to wage a civil war against the sovereign government whose territory they want to claim.