I just read those links, but I don't see how these articles are relevant to Donbass's claim for self determinancy. Please keep in mind that we started this war, in 2014, by funding the removal of Viktor Yanukovych who fairly won the election. The liberal elite in Kiev were unhappy, and the U.S. didn't like that he was pro-russian AND quite conservative, and so we spent over 5B to remove him by force.
Donbass, of course, who voted for him. refused to accept this meddling in their election because Yankukovych was their guy. He was their choice, and he won fairly, so they made the perfectly rational decision of leaving the union.
The negotiaton for their autonomy was agreed upon by all sides, with the help of Paris outlined in the MINSK protocol. This agreement ended the civil war, and gave Donbass autonomy.
For whatever reason, Kiev did not abide by this agreement. Is it because Donbas is rich in oil? Is it because they hate Russians? I don't know. But 1.5B in arms was sent to Kiev in 2019, and some of those shells (American made) are now sitting on the doorsteps of Donbass residents, and this has been ongoing for seven years. Surely, these people deserve to live without shells landing on their porch.
This is also the equilavent of Russia sending 1.5B in arms to Mexico city, and then intermittently harrassing Tijuana residents (on our border).
Now, if Russia is the one shelling Donbas, and if this is a false flag operation as NATO claims, then WE MUST SHOW EVIDENCE. When Brazil, China, Argentina, Turkery, Hungary and Russia ask for evidence, and our diplomats walk out of the room, then that is eerily similar to the actions of the old USSR. When journalists in the United States ask for evidence, and the only reply is "it's classified and you just have to believe us", then this too is eerily similar to the old USSR.
So this is the provacation that led to war.
Now in regards to the war itself, and children dying and hospitals being bombed, etc, etc. First of all, please keep in mind that the conversation is a mouth piece for the liberal elite. They curate their comment section, and the only academics who write for the conversation are liberal, and quite liberal I might add. Some of them might be described as "hard left". Despite this disclaimer, I fully agree that Russia is a more or less a totatilitarian state. But that has nothing to do with Donbass.
And there is a great deal of propaganda on both sides. For example, one photo showing Zelensky on the "front lines of war", dissimenated by our media, was actually a photo taken in 2019. And the town that was supposedly bombed by Russians, was actually leveled three days prior in an effort to garner support from the international community. In other words, they evacuated the town, bombed it, then when the Russians arrived three days later they sent out a press release claiming so-called war crimes. This type of pyschology is employed on both sides. Indeed, the pentagon has a whole department designed just to send out propaganda. And Russians have similar departments.
I don't agree with the article about Syria, because we also started that war. Obama directed the CIA to overthrow Assad, and we funded and armed the resistance. I think the operation was called Timber Sycamore, but don't quote me.
You may be 100% correct in what you write. Yes, governments are incompetent, hypocrites, lie and break promises including the USA. That said, Ukraine is not about the Donbass and who did what to whom and when any longer. It is about Putin and Putin's (or other want to be or current types like him) world view is my take. I personally don't want to live in a country that is run like Putin runs a country. I think, unfortunately, he needs to be stopped. Perhaps you don't agree with that assessment of the situation.
Yeah, I guess we have to agree to disagree. If Tijuana was being shelled by Mexico City, and Russia was funding Mexico City, I think the United States would be justified in ending the conflict. I am only placing the shoe on the other foot. So I fully support premptive strikes, when a conflict is brewing upon one's borders.
Now if Putin were to take all of Ukraine, then I would disagree with his actions. I would vehemently oppose that type of subjugation. But if he does what he says he's going to do, which is secure the liberty of Donbass, and nothing more, then I believe he is doing the right thing. I wholeheartdely support Donbass's desire for self determination.
Donbass wants liberty, not unlike the men and women who sought to separate themselves from England many years ago.
Thanks for the reply. Yes, it would be nice if everyone, everywhere could have self determination...at least to some reasonable point anyway. They may still get it one day although they may not be happy with a repressive government like Putin's. Then maybe they don't mind that type of government. I sure have no idea what the people in the Donbass are thinking. I figure they are in the thick of a proxy war at this point. The whole thing is a sad situation.
Thank you for your comment.
I just read those links, but I don't see how these articles are relevant to Donbass's claim for self determinancy. Please keep in mind that we started this war, in 2014, by funding the removal of Viktor Yanukovych who fairly won the election. The liberal elite in Kiev were unhappy, and the U.S. didn't like that he was pro-russian AND quite conservative, and so we spent over 5B to remove him by force.
Donbass, of course, who voted for him. refused to accept this meddling in their election because Yankukovych was their guy. He was their choice, and he won fairly, so they made the perfectly rational decision of leaving the union.
The negotiaton for their autonomy was agreed upon by all sides, with the help of Paris outlined in the MINSK protocol. This agreement ended the civil war, and gave Donbass autonomy.
For whatever reason, Kiev did not abide by this agreement. Is it because Donbas is rich in oil? Is it because they hate Russians? I don't know. But 1.5B in arms was sent to Kiev in 2019, and some of those shells (American made) are now sitting on the doorsteps of Donbass residents, and this has been ongoing for seven years. Surely, these people deserve to live without shells landing on their porch.
This is also the equilavent of Russia sending 1.5B in arms to Mexico city, and then intermittently harrassing Tijuana residents (on our border).
Now, if Russia is the one shelling Donbas, and if this is a false flag operation as NATO claims, then WE MUST SHOW EVIDENCE. When Brazil, China, Argentina, Turkery, Hungary and Russia ask for evidence, and our diplomats walk out of the room, then that is eerily similar to the actions of the old USSR. When journalists in the United States ask for evidence, and the only reply is "it's classified and you just have to believe us", then this too is eerily similar to the old USSR.
So this is the provacation that led to war.
Now in regards to the war itself, and children dying and hospitals being bombed, etc, etc. First of all, please keep in mind that the conversation is a mouth piece for the liberal elite. They curate their comment section, and the only academics who write for the conversation are liberal, and quite liberal I might add. Some of them might be described as "hard left". Despite this disclaimer, I fully agree that Russia is a more or less a totatilitarian state. But that has nothing to do with Donbass.
And there is a great deal of propaganda on both sides. For example, one photo showing Zelensky on the "front lines of war", dissimenated by our media, was actually a photo taken in 2019. And the town that was supposedly bombed by Russians, was actually leveled three days prior in an effort to garner support from the international community. In other words, they evacuated the town, bombed it, then when the Russians arrived three days later they sent out a press release claiming so-called war crimes. This type of pyschology is employed on both sides. Indeed, the pentagon has a whole department designed just to send out propaganda. And Russians have similar departments.
I don't agree with the article about Syria, because we also started that war. Obama directed the CIA to overthrow Assad, and we funded and armed the resistance. I think the operation was called Timber Sycamore, but don't quote me.
You may be 100% correct in what you write. Yes, governments are incompetent, hypocrites, lie and break promises including the USA. That said, Ukraine is not about the Donbass and who did what to whom and when any longer. It is about Putin and Putin's (or other want to be or current types like him) world view is my take. I personally don't want to live in a country that is run like Putin runs a country. I think, unfortunately, he needs to be stopped. Perhaps you don't agree with that assessment of the situation.
Yeah, I guess we have to agree to disagree. If Tijuana was being shelled by Mexico City, and Russia was funding Mexico City, I think the United States would be justified in ending the conflict. I am only placing the shoe on the other foot. So I fully support premptive strikes, when a conflict is brewing upon one's borders.
Now if Putin were to take all of Ukraine, then I would disagree with his actions. I would vehemently oppose that type of subjugation. But if he does what he says he's going to do, which is secure the liberty of Donbass, and nothing more, then I believe he is doing the right thing. I wholeheartdely support Donbass's desire for self determination.
Donbass wants liberty, not unlike the men and women who sought to separate themselves from England many years ago.
Thanks for the reply. Yes, it would be nice if everyone, everywhere could have self determination...at least to some reasonable point anyway. They may still get it one day although they may not be happy with a repressive government like Putin's. Then maybe they don't mind that type of government. I sure have no idea what the people in the Donbass are thinking. I figure they are in the thick of a proxy war at this point. The whole thing is a sad situation.