3 ms·
I appreciate your response. It sounds like you familiar with the topic. You described the core of the problem as the response to a certain event (events in Cri
by andreygrehov 3y ago
I appreciate your response. It sounds like you familiar with the topic.
You described the core of the problem as the response to a certain event (events in Crimea), meaning you answered the question of "why". Having said that, could you apply the same reasoning and explain why Russia occupied Crimea? What were the events that led to such an outcome?
Edit: as a side note, I disagree with you saying that was not a provocation. External military intervention IS a provocation. They could've tried to resolve the issue diplomatically, but they chose not to.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> You described the core of the problem as the response to a certain event (events in Crimea) The 2014 invasion of Ukraine was not, and I did not describe it as, limited to events in Crimea. > Having said that, could you apply the same reasoning and explain why Russia occupied Crimea I will not pretend to explain the agressors’ reasoning, but the context was that it was immediately after the people of Ukraine drove out their former Russian-aligned leader. > External military intervention IS a provocation. It can’t provoke a war that starts before it occurs, and arms deliveries are not military intervention.
- andreygrehov 3y ago> I will not pretend to explain the agressors’ reasoning Huh? That's strange. A deep dive is always important. > the context was that it was immediately after the people of Ukraine drove out their former Russian-aligned leader This is a media-like description of what happened there. From the perspective of the law, it doesn't matter (and therefore should not be even mentioned) whether the leader was Russian-aligned or not. You are not trying to understand the issue, but simply reiterating on what they say in the mainstream media. I'm Ukrainian btw.