Yanukovych left Kyiv on Feb 21nd 2014, was ousted as president by the 22d and fled to Russia by the 26th. [0, 1]
Russia invaded Crimea with boots on the ground by Feb 22-23d. [2]
I wager people who still accept the NATO pretense never checked the timelines of how this started in the first place.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War#2014_Russi...
This is about Russia attempting a genocide of the Ukrainian people.
This is not the first time Russian state attempted such a thing. Holodomor was an engineered famine with the intent of destroying Ukraine. And now they are at it again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Generally as a state Russia is just horrible to all of the nations at it's borders it feels it has enough force to subjugate.
They are not idiots - they realize NATO would never invade Russia.
However, what NATO would have done, is give Ukrainian so much force projection capability within their territory Russia could never threaten them militarily again.
This about a narcissistic bully wanting to subjugate as many people by fear under it's thumb as possible.
Sept 2021: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h... https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_...
But one training can still be seen as a threat on the border of a superpower? IS Army.mil news credible enough for US people outside the reach of russian propaganda? Does it reply your question when was US training on the border of Russia? Can we accept US as a enemy of europe? Or better, can we accept the fact that US is only giving important to ITS own interests without care of the safety of anyone else? (makes sense, it should be european leaders representing europeans interests), but someone should be able to say, european leaders currently suck, damaging their people in order to represent US interests in ukraine
It does not count as a time when Russia was not a threat.
Yes, NATO conducted trainings with Ukraine during the ongoing war started by Russia.
I think the issue is that US has been involved in the political environment of a EU bordering country, without any opposition from European leaders.
No, I asked, and I will quote directly, “When was this time that Russia wasn't a threat and Ukraine was having trainings with NATO?”
That was the claim: that NATO conducted multiple trainings with Ukraine when Russia was not a threat, and that this was the casus belli for Russian aggression. Leaving aside that this would not be legitimate casus belli in any case, it is simply factually false: all the NATO trainings occurred during the war, after Russian aggression against Ukraine began. There cannot retroactively justify the aggression.
Wrong. NATO had at least one Partnership for Peace exercise in Ukraine in October 2002, a few hours drive from L'Viv.[1]
And just to be specific; this doesn't justify any aggression on Russia's behalf, sovereign nations are free to decide who to ally with.
This is absurd. US has been the guarantor of European peace and indenpendence after the second world war.
European union basically started as a Washington think tank project.
Yes, US wants to advance it's own interests. No, it does not make US enemy of "Europe". Which is a silly way to put it. "Europe" is not a single polity or a state (not yet at least). It is still a collection of independent nation states. Most of which want to be aligned with US.
Nobody is forcing them to be aligned with US.
China or Russia would be happy to welcome them into their fold of corrupt autocracy.
Europe and US are strongly aligned economically, culturally and politically, while the world around them turns authoritarian.
Sure, they sometimes play against each other.
But, US and the nations of Europe are first and foremost allies.
But the current EU started after the second world war.
The entity considered the progenitor of EU is the European Coal and Steel community
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun...
This was peak cold war and US influence in Europe was non-neglible to say the least.
While the reporting around the subject is a bit hyperbolical, strong Washington backing was always a cornerstone of the project
https://web.archive.org/web/20220130132451/https://www.teleg...
Nor would they get denazified™ if they decide to align closer to another power.
Not undefined. Ukrainians. Some of whom died for their convictions.
Thank you. So a group of Ukrainians organised a coup against a legitimately elected president instead of substituting him with another legitimately elected individual at the next election cycle. This is a valuable insight for everyone who claims that Ukraine is a democratic state.
First.
I think my words matter very little. What matters is the unquestionable sacrifice, dedication and love the Ukrainians are showing to their country.
This war is a war of genocide and as such an unspeakable, heinous act.
Secondly.
Nonsense. Who else would control Ukraine except Ukrainians themselves?
Please read the Wikipedia link on Maidan above.
Ukrainians are proving with their blood and dedication they wish to be a single democratic people aligned with the west.
Ukraine was turning to an authoritarian dictatorship strongly aligned with Kremlin at the cost of civil society and political rights of her citizens.
Maidan was a color revolution expressing the outrage of people who wanted to be politically aligned with the west, not with Russia.
The opposition leaders were jailed (much like Navalny now in Russia).
The EU trade agreement was depending on structural changes, among them the release of the political opposition.
Yes, it was part of political struggle.
It was a part of struggle of open society versus autocracy.
Much like the war in Ukraine continues to be.
Was there a referendum for joining the EU or was it a political program? You know, at least something that would resemble the UK referendum for leaving the EU. Otherwise how else do you know what the majority of Ukrainians want long-term as a nation?
> It was a part of struggle of open society versus autocracy.
oh yes, the open society of the Panama and Pandora papers [1][2]. Two consecutive presidents that can't help themselves from being anti-autocracy.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-u...
[2] https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
Western institutions stand firm. The fact that you have even heard of panama papers is a proof of this fact.
Democracy is not a joke, it is standing fast. Regardless of the attempts of the autocracies to claim otherwise, or sow dissent by nefarious "whataboutism".
Nobody is "good", everyone does mistakes. They key to understand in the west is the belief of the people in the institutions, and the self correcting dynamic a western style of government instills into a nation.
To get a high level understanding of the situation I recommend Darren Acemoglus "why nations fail" which tries (and in my mind succeeds) in explaining what distinguishes western style of government from more closed autocracies (and how and why it's better in many ways, even though not perfect).
Everyone is of course free to express their opinion on this forum and that's why I cherish this site so much.
Not the only one. Look into the back history of accounts that have been pushing this flimsy "Ukrainian coup" taking point for a long while now, .e.g.
Oh. My. God.
I've had enough HN for today.
The simple truth is that Russia is currently engaged in a genocidal war with the intent of erasing Ukrainian people, which utilizes intentional terror on the civilian population. Everything else can be approximated based on that information.
This is one of the few clear cut conflicts between unspeakable evil and a distinct people who are being eradicated real time.
The ethics of the situation are exactly as clear cut as a Hollywood movie. Russia is the big bad. The Ukraine are the hero. And they are dying by the thousands.
If that were true then Melitopol would be the first erased Ukrainian city, but we see that's not true [1]. Perhaps it's because Azov battalion didn't have a chance to position their artillery on the backyards of civilian flat blocks in that city.
> This is one of the few clear cut conflicts between unspeakable evil and a distinct people who are being eradicated real time.
No it's not, there are far fewer civilian casualties in Ukraine than in Iraq during active months of 2003 alone [2]. Neither NATO nor UN nor the western world in general identifies civilian casualties in Iraq as victims of a genocide.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MCqAERksT8
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Ira...
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
The reported mass deportations of Ukrainian children are included in this definition.
The definition says nothing about Iraq war.
Intent? Documented:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220405204214/https://www.washi...
But a “substantial part of the populace” is “also guilty” and would require “reeducation” and “ideological repressions” lasting “at least a generation” and would “inevitably mean de-Ukrainization.”
The intent to destroy Ukrainian identity, and the actions taken so far, is what makes this look like a genocide. Not the relative number of victims.
Of course until "an official body" declares this a genocide - which is not 100% sure - we can always pretend it's just "a normal war".
Are Russians that stupid? They think a serial number is some kind of authenticator? Heck from the pictures I saw it was spray painted on.
Please don't insult our intelligence.
And you, as a machinist, know it as a matter of fact that this particular serial number on that particular engine block was fabricated? What are your proofs of the claim? Could you name a single media outlet or a single investigative journalist who is collecting evidence of that potential fabrication at the moment?
In a parallel universe where Trudeau promised closer ties to the EU and pivoted mid-term to get closer to the USA, would the USA be entitled to invade and annex us should we decide to throw him out?
People died there. 67 of the protesters died after being shot. They were killed. However, 18 police officers died, too - and probably not to friendly fire. That seems to suggest there was violence involved. Most of that violence was done by the police. Still, that death toll on the police side cannot be just an accident. There was fighting happening there. The police used violence, but the protesters reciprocated in kind.
I'm not saying who was right or wrong. Obviously, 750 people with gunshot wounds is too much for any police action. The officers evidently failed to get the situation under control, and, of course, they are paid to do just that, so the large part of responsibility lies with them. They shouldn't have needed to shot to kill. But, the protesters also could have gone home. Or they could have stayed there, but without resorting to violence (though they would be tortured and some of them would get killed anyway). What actually happened, though, resembled regular urban warfare, if Wikipedia description is to be trusted. One side was out-armed, the other outnumbered, but there definitely were two opposing forces, fighting for territory, taking and re-taking important points, moving wounded to the rear, making surprise attacks or night raids, and fighting them off, involving third parties, and so on.
Again, none of that justifies the invasion by Russia. Annexation of territory, and the war that ensued are both Russia's responsibility and crime. Obviously, Russia is an aggressor here, and it violated sovereignty of Ukraine, no matter the reasons. I'm writing this much about the obvious, because last time I pointed this out I got into a lengthy, very frustrating, discussion with someone who accused me of being on Moscow's payroll. I'm not. I'm not justifying any action of Russia, and I'm not endorsing their aggression, and I don't feel (at very least) like I advance their agenda.
But. More than hundred dead and more than a thousand wounded is not, in my opinion, (EDIT: just a) "civil protest".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_during_t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
> The Arab Spring (Arabic: الربيع العربي) was a series of anti-government protests [...]
If Canada was to get wrecked for joining the Schengen Area (or somehow the EU or China's RCEP), which FWIW I don't see happening, it in no way would justify one or the other superpower pre-emptively crushing sovereign countries. Just like other cases of the US encroaching on foreign countries for dubious reasons don't excuse or justify Ukraine in any way.
Could you at least answer this single question: what did Ukraine have to do with Iraq in 2003-2004?
> would the USA be entitled to invade and annex us should we decide to throw him out?
You should ask Panama and Grenada about this possibility instead, not Canada [1] [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Gren...
No.
I remember when Ukraine tossed out a Russian puppet and Russia nearly immediately invaded and has been continuously at war with Ukraine since.
When was this time that Russia wasn't a threat and Ukraine was having trainings with NATO?