5 ms·

That happens in 2014 when Ukraine lost Crimea. They accepted it and lived on. There is zero safety guarantees for them.

jcranmer 3y ago
Ukraine has been fighting Russia for nearly a decade, with active if low-level warfare in the Donbass region the entire time. I wouldn't exactly call that "accept[ing] it and liv[ing] on."
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  From about 2017 the war was very low-level, limited to some artillery duels. And those duels weren't entirely Ukrainian choice, if Russia shoots at you, you can't just ignore it.
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  Remember when the local "insurrection" to kijev marched into the theater in kherson because they thought it the regional governments office. For all their propaganda multitudes fines online, they are just lethal clowns on the ground, unable to innovate, because bound by puppeteer strings. Ukraine will win. Moscovia will fall apart once again. Empires die and vanish all the time.
somenameforme 3y ago
Not quite! The immediate history here plays a huge role in where we're at today. In the 2014 the US backed a [coup, revolution, insurrection - whatever you want to call it] in Ukraine that saw their democratically elected pro-Russian President overthrown. Numerous Ukrainian territories that also leaned pro-Russia refused to recognize the new government and declared their independence, the Donbas region and Crimea among them. For the 8 years from 2014 to 2022 Ukraine was intermittently attacking and shelling these breakaway territories (excepting Crimea, which had become part of Russia) which were (and are) largely populated with ethnic Russians, and Russia was "secretly" protecting them. This led to a series of treaties, The Minsk Accords [1], to try to arrange peace between Russia and Ukraine, and give the breakaway territories some sort of special status while remaining under Ukraine. These treaties were always violated. And while this was happening Ukraine was increasingly fortifying and arming itself, as well as seeking to join NATO - which NATO was, sincerely or not, indulging. This all really set the stage for where we are today. It also sets the stage for where we're going tomorrow, because the inability to maintain any sort of a peace over these regions is going to make obtaining a 'minimally unfavorable' settlement for Ukraine, over this war, much more difficult. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
- twixfel 3y ago
  So do you think all of Russia's annexations should be recognised by the international community?
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    No, I think the people of these regions should have been allowed to decide their own fate, which then should be internationally recognized. This is, of course, impossible now because the war means that the demographics have shifted substantially and irreversibly. But this would have at least been a viable path forward in 2014. The problem is that nobody wants this sort of democracy unless they like the answer they're going to get. Like imagine if in 2020 the January 6th rioters had somehow managed to overthrow the government and get Trump in office again. It would seem, to me, perfectly reasonable for e.g. California to then say 'No thank you.' and refuse to acknowledge his authority. That probably would have led to a civil war but if you're asking what I think - it's that people in such scenarios (which, granted, are not so easy to define) ought be allowed to decide their own fate.
    - seryoiupfurds 3y ago
      How about if trucks full of soldiers without uniform crossed the border from Mexico to go on a sunny vacation, and decided on the spur of the moment to help their new friends out by imposing martial law and holding sham elections and shooting down airliners?
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      All Ukrainian regions have voted for Ukrainian independence in the 1991 referendum. All the way until 2014 there wasn't actually any relevant pro-independence movement in Crimea or Donbas, until the Russian soldiers showed up, and dictated the course of events, of course.
    - kergonath 3y ago
      > No, I think the people of these regions should have been allowed to decide their own fate, which then should be internationally recognized. This means that Russia needs to go back to its border and free and fair elections need to be held, in accordance with the country’s constitution. Right? You realise that Russia leaving the country is a pre-requisite for the people to vote freely? Unless you count what we’ve seen in Crimea, in the Donbas and in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts as somehow free and fair. You know, when the ballot boxes were brought to each house by armed Russian soldiers with tanks on the streets. > But this would have at least been a viable path forward in 2014. 2014 was when Putin put everything in motion, having spent the previous years setting it up. If you think that anything reasonable could happen under Yanukovich, well, you were not paying attention.

Ukraine has been fighting Russia for nearly a decade, with active if low-level warfare in the Donbass region the entire time. I wouldn't exactly call that "accept[ing] it and liv[ing] on."

The_Colonel 3y ago
From about 2017 the war was very low-level, limited to some artillery duels. And those duels weren't entirely Ukrainian choice, if Russia shoots at you, you can't just ignore it.
Log_out_ 3y ago
Remember when the local "insurrection" to kijev marched into the theater in kherson because they thought it the regional governments office. For all their propaganda multitudes fines online, they are just lethal clowns on the ground, unable to innovate, because bound by puppeteer strings. Ukraine will win. Moscovia will fall apart once again. Empires die and vanish all the time.

somenameforme 3y ago

Not quite! The immediate history here plays a huge role in where we're at today. In the 2014 the US backed a [coup, revolution, insurrection - whatever you want to call it] in Ukraine that saw their democratically elected pro-Russian President overthrown. Numerous Ukrainian territories that also leaned pro-Russia refused to recognize the new government and declared their independence, the Donbas region and Crimea among them. For the 8 years from 2014 to 2022 Ukraine was intermittently attacking and shelling these breakaway territories (excepting Crimea, which had become part of Russia) which were (and are) largely populated with ethnic Russians, and Russia was "secretly" protecting them. This led to a series of treaties, The Minsk Accords [1], to try to arrange peace between Russia and Ukraine, and give the breakaway territories some sort of special status while remaining under Ukraine. These treaties were always violated. And while this was happening Ukraine was increasingly fortifying and arming itself, as well as seeking to join NATO - which NATO was, sincerely or not, indulging. This all really set the stage for where we are today. It also sets the stage for where we're going tomorrow, because the inability to maintain any sort of a peace over these regions is going to make obtaining a 'minimally unfavorable' settlement for Ukraine, over this war, much more difficult. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

twixfel 3y ago
So do you think all of Russia's annexations should be recognised by the international community?
- somenameforme 3y ago
  No, I think the people of these regions should have been allowed to decide their own fate, which then should be internationally recognized. This is, of course, impossible now because the war means that the demographics have shifted substantially and irreversibly. But this would have at least been a viable path forward in 2014. The problem is that nobody wants this sort of democracy unless they like the answer they're going to get. Like imagine if in 2020 the January 6th rioters had somehow managed to overthrow the government and get Trump in office again. It would seem, to me, perfectly reasonable for e.g. California to then say 'No thank you.' and refuse to acknowledge his authority. That probably would have led to a civil war but if you're asking what I think - it's that people in such scenarios (which, granted, are not so easy to define) ought be allowed to decide their own fate.
  - seryoiupfurds 3y ago
    How about if trucks full of soldiers without uniform crossed the border from Mexico to go on a sunny vacation, and decided on the spur of the moment to help their new friends out by imposing martial law and holding sham elections and shooting down airliners?
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    All Ukrainian regions have voted for Ukrainian independence in the 1991 referendum. All the way until 2014 there wasn't actually any relevant pro-independence movement in Crimea or Donbas, until the Russian soldiers showed up, and dictated the course of events, of course.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    > No, I think the people of these regions should have been allowed to decide their own fate, which then should be internationally recognized. This means that Russia needs to go back to its border and free and fair elections need to be held, in accordance with the country’s constitution. Right? You realise that Russia leaving the country is a pre-requisite for the people to vote freely? Unless you count what we’ve seen in Crimea, in the Donbas and in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts as somehow free and fair. You know, when the ballot boxes were brought to each house by armed Russian soldiers with tanks on the streets. > But this would have at least been a viable path forward in 2014. 2014 was when Putin put everything in motion, having spent the previous years setting it up. If you think that anything reasonable could happen under Yanukovich, well, you were not paying attention.