4 ms·

I think it's an accurate summary. The separatists are under Russian control. The Russian army has been fighting alongside them since 2014, when they invaded Do

I think it's an accurate summary. The separatists are under Russian control. The Russian army has been fighting alongside them since 2014, when they invaded Donbas. In the 1991 referendum, voters in Dontesk and Luhansk overwhelmingly voted against being part of Russia. Per your source, in the Ukrainian-controlled part of Donbas, 75% want to be part of Ukraine. In the Russian-controlled part of Donbas, 57% want to be part of Russia. First point, why such stark difference? I think it's because Russia is very good at propaganda and they exercise it heavily in areas under their control. Second point, this changes absolutely nothing about my claim that what Russia did and is doing is completely immoral, pure evil. They don't care about the people in the separatist republics, that's just a marketing spin that almost everyone can see through. It's about imperialism, revenge, power. Putin has been planing to absorb at least Belarus and Ukraine since a very long time. After all, Russia invaded the non-Russian controlled parts of Ukraine, which, per your source, are heavily against joining Russia. Even if some parts of Ukraine wanted to join Russia, it wouldn't give Russia the right to annex the territory. I'm curious why you have this view, what's your background - nationality, ethnicity, feelings about the West? (I'm from the Czech Republic.)

leereeves 4y ago
> The separatists are under Russian control. I think this dehumanizes them. They chose to become part of Russia and the fact that they have mostly become part of Russia doesn't erase that choice. > In the 1991 referendum... A lot has happened since 1991. Don't you agree that a poll from 2021 is more relevant now? > First point, why such stark difference? An obvious explanation would be that only the areas where enough people wanted to leave Ukraine were controlled by the separatists. > Second point, this changes absolutely nothing about my claim that what Russia did and is doing is completely immoral, pure evil. If you mean that it's never moral to support separatists, I disagree completely. > I'm curious why you have this view I'm from the US. We are, first of all, a nation founded by "separatists", who also fought against other separatists to remain a single nation. I think each separatist cause needs to be evaluated on its merits, but in general (when something like slavery isn't involved) I think the people of a smaller region should be free to leave a larger nation if they wish. If I didn't believe that, I'd have to apply for British citizenship. And the US is also a nation that's done exactly what Russia is doing, many times. We nearly started a war because Russian weapons were too close to the US (in Cuba), just as Russia demands that Western weapons stay out of Ukraine. And we've invaded many nations on pretexts weaker than Russia's in this war. If we accepted those actions as precedents, they would justify Russia's actions in this war. Everything I hear seems to be tinged by a bit of an "it's only OK when we do it" attitude, so I feel that this war is about power and imperialism for the US as much as it is for Russia. And perhaps also for Ukraine. Ukraine has even demanded the return of Crimea, where even in 1991, only 54% wanted to be separate from Russia. After all that's happened, do you think Crimea really wants to return to Ukraine? My ideal solution would be a fair and binding vote on separation for all the regions in question, but I know no party would accept that.
- mopsi 4y ago
  > I think this dehumanizes them. They chose to become part of Russia and the fact that they have mostly become part of Russia doesn't erase that choice. Does not dehumanize at all. Ukraine fell into political turmoil similar to January 6 riots in the US, and Russia used intelligence operatives to instigate further violent riots, quickly invaded parts of Ukraine taking advantage of the confusion, and established a military occupation. The so-called separatists were directly funded and supported by Russia in the earliest days, and then under the full control of the military admin after tanks rolled in. As I've told before, the European Court of Human Rights has confirmed the same when they were investigating whether Russia is responsible for MH17 shootdown, which happened on occupied territories. Since Russia had full control, ECHR found them responsible. Locals have had as much freedom to choose their future as Parisians in 1940.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    You've conflated two different issues. The ECHR has ruled (and I think they're right) that Russia is in control of the region. That tells us nothing about whether the people of the region want to be part of Russia. For that, we have to look to polls, like the one I cited, which tell us that the people living in the region do support Russia. Which isn't that surprising, considering that the elected President they supported was driven out of office by a revolution. That kind of thing would make anyone question their democracy. If you must compare it to Jan 6th, it's as if the Jan 6th riots had lasted for weeks and at the end, the President preferred by the rioters took over.
    - mopsi 4y ago
      The so-called separatists don't represent the people no matter how you approach them. In the earliest days, they consisted of local thugs, the kind of people who come out just to destroy something at protests. Then intelligence operatives like Igor Girkin were quickly installed to direct the violence against Ukraine and its institutions in a controlled way to achieve Russian goals, and then regular armed forces took over. At no point did it have anything to do with people and their will. Nor would I put much value on polls conducted in conditions where people can get murdered for publicly supporting some of the answers. I wonder what Parisians in 1940 would've answered if they got a phone call asking if they wanted to be a part of Germany - while people were disappearing. > Which isn't that surprising, considering that the elected President they supported was driven out of office by a revolution. That kind of thing would make anyone question their democracy. If you must compare it to Jan 6th, it's as if the Jan 6th riots had lasted for weeks and at the end, the President preferred by the rioters took over. Yanukovych was removed from the office by the parliament. It's as if Congress had voted Trump out of the office after January 6th riots, Trump fled abroad and some unhappy Trumpers stormed further goverment buildings, and then Mexican army rolled in to support "separatists" and occupied Arizona and Texas, and then Mexican intelligence operatives cosplaying as independent freedom fighters asked Mexico to annex Arizona and Texas into Mexico.

leereeves 4y ago

> The separatists are under Russian control. I think this dehumanizes them. They chose to become part of Russia and the fact that they have mostly become part of Russia doesn't erase that choice. > In the 1991 referendum... A lot has happened since 1991. Don't you agree that a poll from 2021 is more relevant now? > First point, why such stark difference? An obvious explanation would be that only the areas where enough people wanted to leave Ukraine were controlled by the separatists. > Second point, this changes absolutely nothing about my claim that what Russia did and is doing is completely immoral, pure evil. If you mean that it's never moral to support separatists, I disagree completely. > I'm curious why you have this view I'm from the US. We are, first of all, a nation founded by "separatists", who also fought against other separatists to remain a single nation. I think each separatist cause needs to be evaluated on its merits, but in general (when something like slavery isn't involved) I think the people of a smaller region should be free to leave a larger nation if they wish. If I didn't believe that, I'd have to apply for British citizenship. And the US is also a nation that's done exactly what Russia is doing, many times. We nearly started a war because Russian weapons were too close to the US (in Cuba), just as Russia demands that Western weapons stay out of Ukraine. And we've invaded many nations on pretexts weaker than Russia's in this war. If we accepted those actions as precedents, they would justify Russia's actions in this war. Everything I hear seems to be tinged by a bit of an "it's only OK when we do it" attitude, so I feel that this war is about power and imperialism for the US as much as it is for Russia. And perhaps also for Ukraine. Ukraine has even demanded the return of Crimea, where even in 1991, only 54% wanted to be separate from Russia. After all that's happened, do you think Crimea really wants to return to Ukraine? My ideal solution would be a fair and binding vote on separation for all the regions in question, but I know no party would accept that.

mopsi 4y ago
> I think this dehumanizes them. They chose to become part of Russia and the fact that they have mostly become part of Russia doesn't erase that choice. Does not dehumanize at all. Ukraine fell into political turmoil similar to January 6 riots in the US, and Russia used intelligence operatives to instigate further violent riots, quickly invaded parts of Ukraine taking advantage of the confusion, and established a military occupation. The so-called separatists were directly funded and supported by Russia in the earliest days, and then under the full control of the military admin after tanks rolled in. As I've told before, the European Court of Human Rights has confirmed the same when they were investigating whether Russia is responsible for MH17 shootdown, which happened on occupied territories. Since Russia had full control, ECHR found them responsible. Locals have had as much freedom to choose their future as Parisians in 1940.
- leereeves 4y ago
  You've conflated two different issues. The ECHR has ruled (and I think they're right) that Russia is in control of the region. That tells us nothing about whether the people of the region want to be part of Russia. For that, we have to look to polls, like the one I cited, which tell us that the people living in the region do support Russia. Which isn't that surprising, considering that the elected President they supported was driven out of office by a revolution. That kind of thing would make anyone question their democracy. If you must compare it to Jan 6th, it's as if the Jan 6th riots had lasted for weeks and at the end, the President preferred by the rioters took over.
  - mopsi 4y ago
    The so-called separatists don't represent the people no matter how you approach them. In the earliest days, they consisted of local thugs, the kind of people who come out just to destroy something at protests. Then intelligence operatives like Igor Girkin were quickly installed to direct the violence against Ukraine and its institutions in a controlled way to achieve Russian goals, and then regular armed forces took over. At no point did it have anything to do with people and their will. Nor would I put much value on polls conducted in conditions where people can get murdered for publicly supporting some of the answers. I wonder what Parisians in 1940 would've answered if they got a phone call asking if they wanted to be a part of Germany - while people were disappearing. > Which isn't that surprising, considering that the elected President they supported was driven out of office by a revolution. That kind of thing would make anyone question their democracy. If you must compare it to Jan 6th, it's as if the Jan 6th riots had lasted for weeks and at the end, the President preferred by the rioters took over. Yanukovych was removed from the office by the parliament. It's as if Congress had voted Trump out of the office after January 6th riots, Trump fled abroad and some unhappy Trumpers stormed further goverment buildings, and then Mexican army rolled in to support "separatists" and occupied Arizona and Texas, and then Mexican intelligence operatives cosplaying as independent freedom fighters asked Mexico to annex Arizona and Texas into Mexico.