4 ms·

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

by 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.
        XorNot 5y ago
  - klibertp 5y ago
    Yanukovych won the democratic elections. His Party of Regions was the biggest at the time. He made some unpopular decisions, well within his constitutional rights, and then an armed, violent mob started occupying a part of the capital, a mob that enjoyed all the rhetorical (and, I read on the Wiki, financial) support of foreign officials, up to the point of using foreign embassy as a field hospital. Yanukovych first tried to use force[1] to take care of the situation, which failed. Before fleeing the country, though, he repeatedly tried to strike some kind of deal with the protesters, offering talks and concessions to the other side, including holding new elections in about a month. The opposition leaders took up his offers, only to be ignored by the mob, which demanded removing Yanukovych from office effective immediately. Meanwhile, democratically elected local government of Crimea repeatedly warned that, shall Yanukovych be forced out of office illegally, Crimea will consider seceding. We know how that played out. Was Yanukovych Russian puppet? Sure. Was he democratically elected president? Yes. Was he and his political circle corrupt? You bet. Was it strange at the time in Ukraine? Not at all. Were there masses of people who demanded his deposition? Obviously. Were there masses of people who opposed the perceived coup d'etat? Yes, there were. There seem to be deeply rooted divisions in Ukrainian society and perhaps something like the Euromaidan was inevitable. Maybe Ukraine is better off afterwards, I don't know. What I do know, though, is that your comment here is part of the problem, not the solution. Foregoing the nuance, forgetting to consider narratives other than your own, and above all else - giving in to emotionally loaded arguments instead of rationally assessing long-term effects of what happened is exactly what caused the current situation. [1] EDIT: yes, by firing live ammo at the crowd, which in itself is nothing strange. The guns and live rounds did not magically appear out of thin air - they were entrusted to the police to defend the state from perceived threats. Euromaidan protesters were perceived as a threat. They were aware they were perceived as such. They could have gone home, but chose not to. The effect was 20 dead and many more wounded. All deaths should be mourned, but it's unfair to blame them on just one side while both sides contributed to escalating the tensions.
    - glogla 5y ago
      > yes, by firing live ammo at the crowd, which in itself is nothing strange Right.

by XorNot 5y ago

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.
      - XorNot 5y ago
- klibertp 5y ago
  Yanukovych won the democratic elections. His Party of Regions was the biggest at the time. He made some unpopular decisions, well within his constitutional rights, and then an armed, violent mob started occupying a part of the capital, a mob that enjoyed all the rhetorical (and, I read on the Wiki, financial) support of foreign officials, up to the point of using foreign embassy as a field hospital. Yanukovych first tried to use force[1] to take care of the situation, which failed. Before fleeing the country, though, he repeatedly tried to strike some kind of deal with the protesters, offering talks and concessions to the other side, including holding new elections in about a month. The opposition leaders took up his offers, only to be ignored by the mob, which demanded removing Yanukovych from office effective immediately. Meanwhile, democratically elected local government of Crimea repeatedly warned that, shall Yanukovych be forced out of office illegally, Crimea will consider seceding. We know how that played out. Was Yanukovych Russian puppet? Sure. Was he democratically elected president? Yes. Was he and his political circle corrupt? You bet. Was it strange at the time in Ukraine? Not at all. Were there masses of people who demanded his deposition? Obviously. Were there masses of people who opposed the perceived coup d'etat? Yes, there were. There seem to be deeply rooted divisions in Ukrainian society and perhaps something like the Euromaidan was inevitable. Maybe Ukraine is better off afterwards, I don't know. What I do know, though, is that your comment here is part of the problem, not the solution. Foregoing the nuance, forgetting to consider narratives other than your own, and above all else - giving in to emotionally loaded arguments instead of rationally assessing long-term effects of what happened is exactly what caused the current situation. [1] EDIT: yes, by firing live ammo at the crowd, which in itself is nothing strange. The guns and live rounds did not magically appear out of thin air - they were entrusted to the police to defend the state from perceived threats. Euromaidan protesters were perceived as a threat. They were aware they were perceived as such. They could have gone home, but chose not to. The effect was 20 dead and many more wounded. All deaths should be mourned, but it's unfair to blame them on just one side while both sides contributed to escalating the tensions.
  - glogla 5y ago
    > yes, by firing live ammo at the crowd, which in itself is nothing strange Right.