In geopolitics, nobody has any particular rights. Whoever has the bigger stick and better propaganda gets their way.
One could argue that there’s no reason to have sanctions on Cuba, that Palestinians should also have the right to self determination, that America doesn’t have the right to interfere in the developing world.
That’s not how the world works, regardless of right or wrong.
IMO - the west could have prevented this war. Regardless of what Ukraine wants, an agreement that NATO will not expand eastwards for 60 years in exchange for Russia not invading. That was all we needed.
Why does it matter if a NATO country is on the border anyway? In the age of ICBMs, stealth bombers, and drones is the real concern that some large NATO force would march over the border for a land invasion of Russia?
This question, no matter how well intentioned, is irrelevant.
Russia views NATO as an existential threat. It’s irrelevant whether you agree with that NATO is such a threat or not. Russia does not want NATO on or by its borders. They’ve been making this clear since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
You can disagree with them, argue in favor of NATO expanding eastward, or specifically making Ukraine a member state, etc. These are all moot points.
Russia has made their position extremely clear. The war is obviously not a surprise.
Tell us something. Why does it matter to the US when China tries to expand its sphere of influence over HK or islands in the Pacific?
What would happen if a Chinese bloc propagated itself to the Western Hemisphere and established an alliance with Cuba or South America?
Surely the same argument - that none of it matters in the day of nuclear weapons and ballistics capabilities - that same argument would valid, right? But would Washington stand for this? Absolutely not.
Cuba is still being punished to this day. The Monroe doctrine is still very real.
Russia warned about this for decades. The West basically told Russia that they don’t matter, that they’re a has been, and NATO will do whatever it wants.
Well, here we have the consequences. Now Bidens administration is quietly admitting that the war is becoming an economic liability for the US, but I digress.
Sometimes it's because exactly what is obviously the reason.
Ukraine can do whatever it wants. It was up to NATO to flat out reject any prospects of Ukraine’s membership and prevent the war, but they egged it on.
Ukraine can do whatever it wants, but the simply truth is that Ukraine is now just ground zero in Washington’s proxy war with Russia. They could have remained neutral and avoided this disaster.
No, it doesn't have this right to join ANY alliance, as it may violate one of the conditions (military bloc neutrality) under which their sovereignty was granted to them by the USSR, which Russia is a legitimate successor of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31746866
[1] The election has been widely recognized and endorsed as being fair and an accurate reflection of voters' intentions by all international agencies observing the election including the OSCE and PACE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
You provided a source to show the elections were valid but who was questioning that? The cause of the uprising (from wiki)
"In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests (known as Euromaidan) erupted in response to President Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. "
And you also speak about lack of representation but
"A total of 315 of the 349 MPs registered in the sitting hall supported the document on Friday." [1]
That's a huge majority in any political system. I think there's room for debate whether the people were represented sufficiently by the president's actions.
Regardless, again unlike jan 6th, a foreign country was involed and later invaded. Two, the revolutionaries reason was truthful and not a lie about election fraud , and three a meaningful percentage of the population was involved which gives some merit to a revolution.
Sources
1.https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/pa...
The motion you are mentioning was the Ukraine cabinet passing a resolution (in other words a statement of intent) to continue working towards an EU Association Agreement, the exact same sort they currently have with places such as Israel, Egypt, South Africa, Syria, and many other such nations. [1] That cabinet then chose to not pass any further acts that would have been necessary to move forward with said agreement. Instead it started moving towards the creation of a 3-way association agreement between Ukraine, the EU, and Russia that would help ensure trade could flow amongst all parties. [2]
That's when you started getting protests, which quickly escalated into riots and insurrection efforts. And you then also get completely bizarre scenes like this [3]. That is John McCain in the capital of Ukraine, telling protesters that America is with them and that their future is with America and Europe. Imagine if you had something comparable during January 6th from comparably high level Chinese/Russian officials. It's not only completely surreal, but also understates the issue. Because this was effectively a superpower declaring war on the current establishment of a much weaker country, which is going to endlessly embolden insurrection efforts.
As for merit, neither the protests nor insurrection were supported by the majority of the country [4], at least not until the government was overthrown at which point there were reasons for self censorship, and likely also disrupted polling as various regions began rejecting the new government and declaring their independence. And I don't believe you've considered the implications of your statement that so long as a "meaningful" percent of people participate in an insurrection, it has merit. US elections are regularly decided on near 50/50 scales. Obviously you don't support the idea of the losing party now just trying to violently overthrow the winning party. The only thing that large participation would show is the degree of radicalization among the losing party, which is certainly not a positive thing.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Association_Agr...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine...
[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg
[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Public_opinion_abou...
He mentions in the article that an unnamed world leader told him Russia would get upset at NATO being so close to their border. Putin has publicly mentioned this multiple times before the war with Ukraine.
Finally, Ukraine has the right to join any alliance it wants and for Russia to invade over that is bullshit. If you want to bring up promises about not joining NATO then we must talk about promises not to invade. Russia has already done this before in 2014