3 ms·

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", whi

by 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...
        klibertp 5y ago
        > Given that he was removed parliamentary vote [1] [...] But you know, apparently none of that counted as democracy The source you link says this: > The constitutionality of Yanukovych's removal from office has been questioned by constitutional experts.[192] According to Daisy Sindelar from Radio Free Europe, the impeachment may have not followed the procedure provided by the constitution: "[I]t is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- i.e., 338 lawmakers." The vote, as analyzed by Sindelar, had ten votes less than those required by the constitutional guidelines. However, Sindelar noted in the same article that, "That discrepancy may soon become irrelevant, with parliament expected to elect a new prime minister no later than February 24." The decision to remove Yanukovich was supported by 328 deputies.[b][191][194][19][195] > Although the legislative removal by an impeachment procedure would have lacked the number of votes required by Ukraine's constitution,[193] the resolution did not follow the impeachment procedure but instead established that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and cited "circumstances of extreme urgency",[191][194] a situation for which there was no stipulation in the then-current Ukrainian constitution.[196] Yes, ignoring the procedures doesn't count as democracy. Popular support doesn't give you a right to ignore constitution. Just because you feel the other party is a bad guy - and he may well be - doesn't mean you can invent new laws in the spur of the moment.

by ailef 5y ago

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...
      - klibertp 5y ago
        > Given that he was removed parliamentary vote [1] [...] But you know, apparently none of that counted as democracy The source you link says this: > The constitutionality of Yanukovych's removal from office has been questioned by constitutional experts.[192] According to Daisy Sindelar from Radio Free Europe, the impeachment may have not followed the procedure provided by the constitution: "[I]t is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- i.e., 338 lawmakers." The vote, as analyzed by Sindelar, had ten votes less than those required by the constitutional guidelines. However, Sindelar noted in the same article that, "That discrepancy may soon become irrelevant, with parliament expected to elect a new prime minister no later than February 24." The decision to remove Yanukovich was supported by 328 deputies.[b][191][194][19][195] > Although the legislative removal by an impeachment procedure would have lacked the number of votes required by Ukraine's constitution,[193] the resolution did not follow the impeachment procedure but instead established that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and cited "circumstances of extreme urgency",[191][194] a situation for which there was no stipulation in the then-current Ukrainian constitution.[196] Yes, ignoring the procedures doesn't count as democracy. Popular support doesn't give you a right to ignore constitution. Just because you feel the other party is a bad guy - and he may well be - doesn't mean you can invent new laws in the spur of the moment.