3 ms·

Does it though? [1] We have pretend rule of law. We pretend the law matters, and we pretend to follow it. In any case, Putin argues that the war (or in his p

Does it though? [1] We have pretend rule of law. We pretend the law matters, and we pretend to follow it. In any case, Putin argues that the war (or in his parlance, SMO) is legal under UN precedent in Yugoslavia, that a breakaway republic may be recognized even if the former nation dissents. IMO, this whole ordeal could have been avoided, but Western backed Ukraine decided it was better to fight than capitulate to Russia's demands. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

piva00 4y ago
You are probably well aware but this is exactly the lines being sold by the Kremlin. Ukraine, as we can see in reality, isn't Russia. Don't identify as Russia and has not been wanting to be part of Moscow-ruled territory for a few decades. How exactly could this whole ordeal been avoided? Letting Putin continue the dismantling of Ukraine through civil wars and separatist movements?
- linuxftw 4y ago
  > How exactly could this whole ordeal been avoided? Not have a western backed military coup in 2014, for starters? As I said, Ukraine was essentially a vassal state of Russia. The coup in 2014 meant to overthrow vassal status. This kicked off a civil war. There's a series of events that lead to the current war which could have been handled differently. But Nationalism won out, people decided that giving autonomy to some regions was unacceptable and worth fighting for.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    The Maidan Uprising was neither western-backed nor a military coup. It wasn't even a coup. The _legislature_ may have violated the constitutional process for removing a president, but the courts never ruled as such. It's also not a "civil war" when Russia invades Ukraine, even if there are separatists involved.
    - linuxftw 4y ago
      > The Maidan Uprising was neither western-backed nor a military coup. Many people think this, but it's factually incorrect.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        Many people think this because it is factually correct. The evidence to the contrary is a clip of a private conversation that Russian intelligence acquired in which one US diplomat opined to another that the uprising might not be a bad thing (or something to that effect).
        linuxftw 4y ago
        When John McCain flies out and meets the head of the opposition, who thereafter storm the capital with assault rifles, and the president of the country flees, it sure looks like a western backed coup to me.
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        A politician visiting a country (even expressing support for a rival politician) doesn't imply backing a coup, and indeed there was no coup--the capital was never occupied (in a military sense) by armed protesters as you claim, the president fled to escape justice (and indeed the supreme court convicted him of treason). Notably, the Yanukovych wasn't pushed out by any military or paramilitary, he was voted out by the (democratically elected) legislature and convicted by the court. That said, I'm sure the protesters were armed, as they were being fired upon by Yanukovych's forces (including snipers trained in Russia) and many protesters were killed. Moreover, McCain was advocating for a peaceful transition of power to stop the violence. While we're talking about suspicious foreign involvement, let's talk about the $15bn that Putin offered Yanukovych (and which Yanukovych accepted) hours before police were ordered to crack down on protests. Or the documents which showed that Russian officials served as advisers in the crackdown on protesters (operations Wave and Boomerang) including the use of snipers and the planned use of 22,000 security troops in Kyiv alone.
throwaway894345 4y ago
> We have pretend rule of law. We pretend the law matters, and we pretend to follow it. There's no pretense. We mostly do follow the law, and the law very much matters. The Iraq War is the exception that proves the rule. > IMO, this whole ordeal could have been avoided, but Western backed Ukraine decided it was better to fight than capitulate to Russia's demands. "WWII could have been avoided, but Allied Europe decided it was better to fight than capitulate to Nazi demands." Obviously nations are going to fight for their sovereignty. > In any case, Putin argues that the war (or in his parlance, SMO) is legal under UN precedent in Yugoslavia, that a breakaway republic may be recognized even if the former nation dissents. Anyone can argue that anything is legal, that doesn't make them right. Notably, the UN collectively disagrees with him.

piva00 4y ago

You are probably well aware but this is exactly the lines being sold by the Kremlin. Ukraine, as we can see in reality, isn't Russia. Don't identify as Russia and has not been wanting to be part of Moscow-ruled territory for a few decades. How exactly could this whole ordeal been avoided? Letting Putin continue the dismantling of Ukraine through civil wars and separatist movements?

linuxftw 4y ago
> How exactly could this whole ordeal been avoided? Not have a western backed military coup in 2014, for starters? As I said, Ukraine was essentially a vassal state of Russia. The coup in 2014 meant to overthrow vassal status. This kicked off a civil war. There's a series of events that lead to the current war which could have been handled differently. But Nationalism won out, people decided that giving autonomy to some regions was unacceptable and worth fighting for.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  The Maidan Uprising was neither western-backed nor a military coup. It wasn't even a coup. The _legislature_ may have violated the constitutional process for removing a president, but the courts never ruled as such. It's also not a "civil war" when Russia invades Ukraine, even if there are separatists involved.
  - linuxftw 4y ago
    > The Maidan Uprising was neither western-backed nor a military coup. Many people think this, but it's factually incorrect.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      Many people think this because it is factually correct. The evidence to the contrary is a clip of a private conversation that Russian intelligence acquired in which one US diplomat opined to another that the uprising might not be a bad thing (or something to that effect).
      - linuxftw 4y ago
        When John McCain flies out and meets the head of the opposition, who thereafter storm the capital with assault rifles, and the president of the country flees, it sure looks like a western backed coup to me.
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        A politician visiting a country (even expressing support for a rival politician) doesn't imply backing a coup, and indeed there was no coup--the capital was never occupied (in a military sense) by armed protesters as you claim, the president fled to escape justice (and indeed the supreme court convicted him of treason). Notably, the Yanukovych wasn't pushed out by any military or paramilitary, he was voted out by the (democratically elected) legislature and convicted by the court. That said, I'm sure the protesters were armed, as they were being fired upon by Yanukovych's forces (including snipers trained in Russia) and many protesters were killed. Moreover, McCain was advocating for a peaceful transition of power to stop the violence. While we're talking about suspicious foreign involvement, let's talk about the $15bn that Putin offered Yanukovych (and which Yanukovych accepted) hours before police were ordered to crack down on protests. Or the documents which showed that Russian officials served as advisers in the crackdown on protesters (operations Wave and Boomerang) including the use of snipers and the planned use of 22,000 security troops in Kyiv alone.

throwaway894345 4y ago

> We have pretend rule of law. We pretend the law matters, and we pretend to follow it. There's no pretense. We mostly do follow the law, and the law very much matters. The Iraq War is the exception that proves the rule. > IMO, this whole ordeal could have been avoided, but Western backed Ukraine decided it was better to fight than capitulate to Russia's demands. "WWII could have been avoided, but Allied Europe decided it was better to fight than capitulate to Nazi demands." Obviously nations are going to fight for their sovereignty. > In any case, Putin argues that the war (or in his parlance, SMO) is legal under UN precedent in Yugoslavia, that a breakaway republic may be recognized even if the former nation dissents. Anyone can argue that anything is legal, that doesn't make them right. Notably, the UN collectively disagrees with him.