7 ms·

Wrong. It all began when President Yanukovych rejected an agreement he promised to sign with the EU (which was, and is, a public document with known the terms)

Wrong. It all began when President Yanukovych rejected an agreement he promised to sign with the EU (which was, and is, a public document with known the terms) in exchange for a deal with Russia, of unknown terms and vague promises, and framed with threats. This was a 180 turn that led to the Maidan Revolution and the impeachment of the president. It was the decision of the President against the will of the majority of Ukrainians who voted to elect Yanukovych, who promised close ties with the EU including signing the Association Agreement. This was followed by Russia invading Ukraine in late 2013/early 2014 with "separatists"/"little green men". By the way - "pro-Russian" Ukrainians didn't revolt against the EU Association Agreement, it got Yanukovych elected. So again, you have strong misinformed opinions aligned with the Russian narrative, of a subject you don't seem to know that much about. That happens to be oddly aligned with some alternative media like The Rubin Report, Tim Pool, etc.

johnisgood 2y ago
> After the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution and the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, a divide between pro-European and pro-Russian factions in Ukraine became more pronounced. > In the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, many residents harbored pro-Russian sentiments due to historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Russia. > Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, separatist groups in Donetsk and Luhansk, supported by local pro-Russian factions, declared independence from Ukraine. These statements are false? > aligned with the Russian narrative That is merely coincidental.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  That is merely coincidental. What matters is that it's a false and misleading narrative. These statements are false? Yup - either false, or misleading/irrelevant. Time is short so we'll just go over 2 of them for now: > In the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, many residents harbored pro-Russian sentiments due to historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Russia. True, but irrelevant. Simply put, that wasn't was caused hostilities to happen. > Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, separatist groups in Donetsk and Luhansk, supported by local pro-Russian factions, declared independence from Ukraine. Except there were no indigenous "separatist groups" driving the action. It was entirely coordinated by Russia from the very start. In other words: a foreign invasion.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    > What matters is that it's a false and misleading narrative. Whether or not it aligns with whatever you say it does, does not necessarily make it right or wrong. "It is pro-Russian, therefore it is wrong" is wrong. I do not dismiss you because your views align with the pro-Ukrainian narrative, nor do I claim that you are wrong. In fact, I do not even claim that I am right. How would I really know? It is mostly hearsay.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Whether or not it aligns with whatever you say it does It's wrong on its own merits, not on the basis of anything I say. How would I really know? It is mostly hearsay. Actually it's not. It's actually pretty easy to get a good sense of what's going on, just by reading whatever sources one does read with a reasonably critical eye. And if one is really bold, by taking the care to read diverse sources. What brought me to respond to you in this case is that you seemed be echoing talking points you had heard or read somewhere, but which were just not grounded in the basic reality of the situation. Talking to people actually from the region (actual real, regular people) can be very helpful, also. In fact to make this very simple for you: just completely forget everything you've read on the internet -- and just talk to people actually affected by the situation for a while. You'll definitely start to get a sense of what's hearsay and what's fact, very very quickly.
      - johnisgood 2y ago
        > you had heard or read somewhere I wish I could provide specific sources, but my information comes partly from Wikipedia and partly from conversations with others, most of whom hold pro-Ukrainian perspectives. There is significant sentiment against Russia and China in general, and I understand why (I am pretty much in the anti-China camp myself and I admittedly hold a bias against China). I have not even heard of "The Rubin Report" or "Tim Pool". I am somewhat familiar with Joe Rogan, but I have only watched one of his popular podcasts, the one featuring Elon Musk.
        deleted 2y ago
- mopsi 2y ago
  > These statements are false? Yes. The "separatists" were entirely a fiction created by Russian armed forces as a cover and pretext for their invasion. The lengthy verdict by the European Court of Human Rights[1] lays it all out and concludes that there is no reason to consider "separatists" anything less than unmarked members of Russian armed forces or security services. The entire story about ethnic tensions that resulted in "pro-Russian Ukrainians rising up against Kyiv government" and Russia coming to their support is a total bunk, a manufactured lie trying to misrepresent an unprovoked invasion by a foreign country as a stereotypical third world civil war that western audiences are accustomed to. Russians are playing directly into your stereotypes to erode support for Ukraine. [1] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-222889%22] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-222889%...}
- libertine 2y ago
  > After the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution and the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, a divide between pro-European and pro-Russian factions in Ukraine became more pronounced. This is a broad irrelevant statement. The signing of the EU Association Agreement was part of Yanukovych's campaign, and Ukrainians elected him. The "pro-russia factions" is a Russian construction. A small fraction of the Ukrainians might have disagreed with the impeachment, but it was THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS in the parliament that impeached the president - BY MAJORITY VOTE[0]. So the elected deputies did what they believed was in the interest of those who elected them. That's democracy, and Ukraine is a democracy. Those who were unhappy could change their vote to elect other deputies on the following elections. No Ukrainians wanted their families killed, and cities occupied and razed by Russia. That's yet again, another Russian narrative spin, along with the "Ukrainians don't have agency/will of its own" implication. > In the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, many residents harbored pro-Russian sentiments due to historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Russia. Ukraine was a former soviet state, where many Ukrainians have family in both Ukraine and Russia. I don't get the point you're trying to make from "sentiments" to a war of occupation with +1.000.000 casualties, 10.000.000 refugees, +25.000 kidnapped children. > Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, separatist groups in Donetsk and Luhansk, supported by local pro-Russian factions, declared independence from Ukraine. Yes, there was a theatrical display of claims of independence, and Russia did some more of it in 2022 with the "referendums" of occupied territory - which of course no sovereign country recognized, except for Syria, and North Korea. What's your point here and why do you stand with Syria and North Korea in these recognitions? ---- So, overall those statements are decontextualized, rendering some of them wrong or irrelevant/misleading. If you were trying to make some point here, I don't see it, just confirms what I said before. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_Ukraine
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    I am not trying to make a point; I am simply exploring, exchanging ideas, and sharing thoughts that provoke a response, allowing me to hear another's perspective on the matter. :) I may be wrong, and I want to get an understanding as to why that may be the case.

johnisgood 2y ago

> After the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution and the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, a divide between pro-European and pro-Russian factions in Ukraine became more pronounced. > In the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, many residents harbored pro-Russian sentiments due to historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Russia. > Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, separatist groups in Donetsk and Luhansk, supported by local pro-Russian factions, declared independence from Ukraine. These statements are false? > aligned with the Russian narrative That is merely coincidental.

aguaviva 2y ago
That is merely coincidental. What matters is that it's a false and misleading narrative. These statements are false? Yup - either false, or misleading/irrelevant. Time is short so we'll just go over 2 of them for now: > In the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, many residents harbored pro-Russian sentiments due to historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Russia. True, but irrelevant. Simply put, that wasn't was caused hostilities to happen. > Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, separatist groups in Donetsk and Luhansk, supported by local pro-Russian factions, declared independence from Ukraine. Except there were no indigenous "separatist groups" driving the action. It was entirely coordinated by Russia from the very start. In other words: a foreign invasion.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  > What matters is that it's a false and misleading narrative. Whether or not it aligns with whatever you say it does, does not necessarily make it right or wrong. "It is pro-Russian, therefore it is wrong" is wrong. I do not dismiss you because your views align with the pro-Ukrainian narrative, nor do I claim that you are wrong. In fact, I do not even claim that I am right. How would I really know? It is mostly hearsay.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Whether or not it aligns with whatever you say it does It's wrong on its own merits, not on the basis of anything I say. How would I really know? It is mostly hearsay. Actually it's not. It's actually pretty easy to get a good sense of what's going on, just by reading whatever sources one does read with a reasonably critical eye. And if one is really bold, by taking the care to read diverse sources. What brought me to respond to you in this case is that you seemed be echoing talking points you had heard or read somewhere, but which were just not grounded in the basic reality of the situation. Talking to people actually from the region (actual real, regular people) can be very helpful, also. In fact to make this very simple for you: just completely forget everything you've read on the internet -- and just talk to people actually affected by the situation for a while. You'll definitely start to get a sense of what's hearsay and what's fact, very very quickly.
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      > you had heard or read somewhere I wish I could provide specific sources, but my information comes partly from Wikipedia and partly from conversations with others, most of whom hold pro-Ukrainian perspectives. There is significant sentiment against Russia and China in general, and I understand why (I am pretty much in the anti-China camp myself and I admittedly hold a bias against China). I have not even heard of "The Rubin Report" or "Tim Pool". I am somewhat familiar with Joe Rogan, but I have only watched one of his popular podcasts, the one featuring Elon Musk.
      - deleted 2y ago
mopsi 2y ago
> These statements are false? Yes. The "separatists" were entirely a fiction created by Russian armed forces as a cover and pretext for their invasion. The lengthy verdict by the European Court of Human Rights[1] lays it all out and concludes that there is no reason to consider "separatists" anything less than unmarked members of Russian armed forces or security services. The entire story about ethnic tensions that resulted in "pro-Russian Ukrainians rising up against Kyiv government" and Russia coming to their support is a total bunk, a manufactured lie trying to misrepresent an unprovoked invasion by a foreign country as a stereotypical third world civil war that western audiences are accustomed to. Russians are playing directly into your stereotypes to erode support for Ukraine. [1] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-222889%22] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-222889%...}
libertine 2y ago
> After the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution and the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, a divide between pro-European and pro-Russian factions in Ukraine became more pronounced. This is a broad irrelevant statement. The signing of the EU Association Agreement was part of Yanukovych's campaign, and Ukrainians elected him. The "pro-russia factions" is a Russian construction. A small fraction of the Ukrainians might have disagreed with the impeachment, but it was THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS in the parliament that impeached the president - BY MAJORITY VOTE[0]. So the elected deputies did what they believed was in the interest of those who elected them. That's democracy, and Ukraine is a democracy. Those who were unhappy could change their vote to elect other deputies on the following elections. No Ukrainians wanted their families killed, and cities occupied and razed by Russia. That's yet again, another Russian narrative spin, along with the "Ukrainians don't have agency/will of its own" implication. > In the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, many residents harbored pro-Russian sentiments due to historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Russia. Ukraine was a former soviet state, where many Ukrainians have family in both Ukraine and Russia. I don't get the point you're trying to make from "sentiments" to a war of occupation with +1.000.000 casualties, 10.000.000 refugees, +25.000 kidnapped children. > Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, separatist groups in Donetsk and Luhansk, supported by local pro-Russian factions, declared independence from Ukraine. Yes, there was a theatrical display of claims of independence, and Russia did some more of it in 2022 with the "referendums" of occupied territory - which of course no sovereign country recognized, except for Syria, and North Korea. What's your point here and why do you stand with Syria and North Korea in these recognitions? ---- So, overall those statements are decontextualized, rendering some of them wrong or irrelevant/misleading. If you were trying to make some point here, I don't see it, just confirms what I said before. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_Ukraine
- johnisgood 2y ago
  I am not trying to make a point; I am simply exploring, exchanging ideas, and sharing thoughts that provoke a response, allowing me to hear another's perspective on the matter. :) I may be wrong, and I want to get an understanding as to why that may be the case.