6 ms·

I'm not sure if you're serious promoting such a characterization of Ukraine. Stable is especially egregious, given there's an ongoing war in eastern Ukraine si

by ailef 5y ago

I'm not sure if you're serious promoting such a characterization of Ukraine. Stable is especially egregious, given there's an ongoing war in eastern Ukraine since 2014. Also, sovereignty is in no way tied to the government system: under international law, you have no more right to invade a dictatorship than a democracy.

sharken 5y ago
Disagree. The conflict in Donbas was started when Russian forces helped those who wanted to take up arms against Ukraine. Had there been no Russian help, things would look very different. See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
- ailef 5y ago
  Unless you don't agree on the definition of "stable", there's not much to say. You simply cannot define a country with an 8 years long conflict as "stable", whichever the reasons for this conflict are. > Russian forces helped those who wanted to take up arms against Ukraine. > Had there been no Russian help, things would look very different. What you said is true but it fails to provide the context of why these people took up arms against their own government. This is a complicated topic and I don't have the time nor the will to write an in-depth answer, but had there be no Russian help there would be thousands more dead civilians in Donbas rather than the ~3000 there are now.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    You mean the context being that the FSB, in a campaign of bribery and murder, ensured that pro-Russian voices assented, and then when the Russian military moved in, ensured that the referendums of the question of whether to join Russia were "properly observed"? Just one of those things where the territory bordering Russia, easiest to occupy in a campaign of incremental encroachment of the style Russia was/is running in Georgia, also happened to wind up with a pro-Russian rebel group.
    - ailef 5y ago
      You are conveniently ignoring that a democratically elected government was violently overthrown in Ukraine, with the involvement of the US, and not everyone was okay with it. After that, those who dissented ended up protesting, and later being supported by Russia. You are not mentioning the explicit discrimination against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, the extrajudicial kidnappings and killings, which were not only not condemned, but often cheered upon by the "new" institutions. You are making it look like the war in Donbas did not arise from legitimate population concerns/their self-determination will, but rather a Russian operation.
      - XorNot 5y ago
        You mean Euromaidan[1] in 2014? In which Russian puppet Yanukovych used riot police to fire live ammo on protesters, after publicly and "bizarrely" backing out of EU negotiations in favor of Russia, who afterwards was just so happened to find sanctuary in Russia and has been repeatedly named as the favored replacement for democratically-elected Zelensky, who Russia has repeatedly tried to assassinate in the past month? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
        ailef 5y ago
        Yanukovich was democratically elected as well, but, of course, you are using the adjective only when referring to Zelensky. The fact that you don't like his policies doesn't make it less democratic.
        XorNot 5y ago
        Just glossing over the "shooting protesters" part then? Nothing stopped him re-contesting the election. Given that he was removed parliamentary vote [1], then disavowed by his own party and then mysteriously enjoyed the assistance of Russian Spetsnaz before he somehow turning up in Moscow. But you know, apparently none of that counted as democracy - but, to be expected since you've just been parroting Putin propaganda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Parliamentary_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Parliamentar...
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  > While the initial protests were largely native expressions of discontent with the new Ukrainian government, Russia took advantage of them to launch a coordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine.[33] Literally from your own link, second paragraph. Conflict wasn't started "when Russian forces helped".
  - sharken 5y ago
    There is quite a difference between expressions of discontent, which happen all the time, to taking up armed resistance. The Russian interference helped turn the discontent into the current conflict.

by ailef 5y ago

sharken 5y ago

Disagree. The conflict in Donbas was started when Russian forces helped those who wanted to take up arms against Ukraine. Had there been no Russian help, things would look very different. See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas

ailef 5y ago
Unless you don't agree on the definition of "stable", there's not much to say. You simply cannot define a country with an 8 years long conflict as "stable", whichever the reasons for this conflict are. > Russian forces helped those who wanted to take up arms against Ukraine. > Had there been no Russian help, things would look very different. What you said is true but it fails to provide the context of why these people took up arms against their own government. This is a complicated topic and I don't have the time nor the will to write an in-depth answer, but had there be no Russian help there would be thousands more dead civilians in Donbas rather than the ~3000 there are now.
- XorNot 5y ago
  You mean the context being that the FSB, in a campaign of bribery and murder, ensured that pro-Russian voices assented, and then when the Russian military moved in, ensured that the referendums of the question of whether to join Russia were "properly observed"? Just one of those things where the territory bordering Russia, easiest to occupy in a campaign of incremental encroachment of the style Russia was/is running in Georgia, also happened to wind up with a pro-Russian rebel group.
  - ailef 5y ago
    You are conveniently ignoring that a democratically elected government was violently overthrown in Ukraine, with the involvement of the US, and not everyone was okay with it. After that, those who dissented ended up protesting, and later being supported by Russia. You are not mentioning the explicit discrimination against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, the extrajudicial kidnappings and killings, which were not only not condemned, but often cheered upon by the "new" institutions. You are making it look like the war in Donbas did not arise from legitimate population concerns/their self-determination will, but rather a Russian operation.
    - XorNot 5y ago
      You mean Euromaidan[1] in 2014? In which Russian puppet Yanukovych used riot police to fire live ammo on protesters, after publicly and "bizarrely" backing out of EU negotiations in favor of Russia, who afterwards was just so happened to find sanctuary in Russia and has been repeatedly named as the favored replacement for democratically-elected Zelensky, who Russia has repeatedly tried to assassinate in the past month? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
      - ailef 5y ago
        Yanukovich was democratically elected as well, but, of course, you are using the adjective only when referring to Zelensky. The fact that you don't like his policies doesn't make it less democratic.
        XorNot 5y ago
        Just glossing over the "shooting protesters" part then? Nothing stopped him re-contesting the election. Given that he was removed parliamentary vote [1], then disavowed by his own party and then mysteriously enjoyed the assistance of Russian Spetsnaz before he somehow turning up in Moscow. But you know, apparently none of that counted as democracy - but, to be expected since you've just been parroting Putin propaganda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Parliamentary_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Parliamentar...
justsomehnguy 5y ago
> While the initial protests were largely native expressions of discontent with the new Ukrainian government, Russia took advantage of them to launch a coordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine.[33] Literally from your own link, second paragraph. Conflict wasn't started "when Russian forces helped".
- sharken 5y ago
  There is quite a difference between expressions of discontent, which happen all the time, to taking up armed resistance. The Russian interference helped turn the discontent into the current conflict.