"There is a teenage Ukrainian girl, Alina, with whom I exchanged long letters: “I hear you. I understand your pain.” She answered me, thanked me, but stressed, I‘m sure you’re wrong about one thing though, “I am 200% certain there are no Nazis in Ukraine.” I replied again, “I’m sorry Alina, but you are wrong about that. How can you live in Ukraine and not know?”"
Hold on. I would agree if you picked other sentences, like maybe this one: "According to independent voices I listen to he governs carefully, making decisions on the grounds of a consensus in the Russian Federation government."
But claiming there are no Nazis anywhere, not just Ukraine, is preposterous nationalism. It's like saying "Spain is moron-free, 200% sure". Can't get more absurd.
Plus, a country at sustained odds with the post-USSR Russia, then at war (with all the polarization that comes with it), experiencing a revival of cuestionable figures from the past... You can argue that Nazis don't rule anything or that they aren't as relevant as some people want to put it, but you cannot in any rationality say what Alina said. Anyone, from any cardinal point, can refute Alina, because her claim is outrageous.
Take a look at the context. In the previous sentence he explains one of the reasons for why Putin launched the "special military operation": "We want to fight Nazism in Ukraine". So the question isn't really "are there any (neo-)Nazis in Ukraine at all?" (of course there are some, as there are in virtually every other European country), but it is "is there a (neo-)Nazi movement in Ukraine that is significant and influential enough to justify an invasion?". Sure, that's not what's being said literally, but it's the only reasonable interpretation. They are not scholars of political science discussing fringe political movements.
The internationally-unrecognized breakaway region of Lithuania got a much better treatment from the Russians than the internationally-unrecognized breakaway regions of Lugansk and Donetsk got from the Ukrainians. Only 13 civilians died in Lithuania in 1991, but the Soviet troops retreated just after a few days. On the other hand, Ukraine has been denying even potential possibility of giving independence to Donbass for many years, and thousands of civilians have been killed in the resulting war.
I'm sorry, you're late for the first Godwin's law bonus points (well, that escalated quickly).
Instead of asking silly questions, I suggest you read my comment and point out if there are any factual inaccuracies. I came here to have a civil exchange of views.
I'm not going to waste my time on pointing out any "factual inaccuracies" because unlike you I'm not getting paid for it, and and you know full well that you came here to spout pro-Putler propaganda, Mr. Sea Lion.
Something is propaganda if it's false or misleading. So if you want to accuse me of spreading propaganda, all I ask is that you have the intellectual honesty to point out any inaccuracies in what I have written.
I'm afraid the inaccuracies lie rather in the things you've carefully *not* written. For example: how was Russia involved in this, could you remind us?
Sure! Russia directly supported the anti-Ukrainian movement in Donbass, just like the US directly supported anti-communist movements all over Eastern Europe in 1980s and early 1990s.
Thank you for making this point. I will surely write a longer post about the myth of "breakaway regions". From what you write it seems you don't speak Russian - because even the Russian themselves do not pretend they believe this nonsense, they created it solely for the Western audience. In the Russian media and telegram channels there was a wave of obituaries for one Igor Mangushev, recently killed by unknown assailants. Russian sourcess are quite openly portraying him as one of the leaders of the 2014 invasion of Ukraine. If you can't read Russian, consider Google Translate - or just wait for my longer post. Many other well known Russian figures, such as Igor Girkin or Simon Pegov, also openly write about their participation in the 2014 invasion. Bottom line: there was never any "separatist movement" in Donbas. They were invaded by Russian paramilitaries who took control of some cities, terrorized local population and declared themselves the "separatist leaders".
Thank you for not jumping on the "your commanding officer told you to post here" bandwagon. Which is ridiculous because, as you rightly point out, I'm not even Russian. But I understand a little Russian and I'm trying to read opinions from both sides.
One thing is being unhappy with the election results and to protest against the newly elect government. I happen to be critical of my current government and I was also protesting on the streets against some of their decisions. It does not mean I would support secession or foreign invasion aimed to "liberate me"!. You seem to confuse "they were protesting against the new government" with "they wanted to secede". It's not the same. Don't you have anti-government protests in your country (whatever it is)?
These people weren't unhappy with the election results; there hadn't been any recent elections as of 2014-03-08. But there had been an unconstitutional removal of the president, which hadn't followed the formal impeachment process. You are from Poland, right? I've heard some Polish people saying they are so fed up with the current government breaking the constitution that they would happily secede and leave behind all those people in eastern Poland who vote for your ruling party. So I can imagine a similar feeling arising in Donbass at that time.
The moment you go "full Roger Waters" and tell me you know my country better than me is the moment we end this conversation. Please do not do it and just take my word: nobody in Poland "would happily secede". Yes, it could be a matter of joke (and this will probably be your next move: you will desperately google someone making this kind of remark on Twitter? once again, please do not do it). But no, there is no actual separatism. We (the ones who lost election) just grin our teeth and wait for the next election. Please also notice that we are unanimous on Russia and Ukraine. I might disagree with my government on everything else, but not on this topic.
And for the third time: don't tell me you know my country better than me.
This president fled the country, after first killing numerous people protesting against his policy and breach of earlier promises for pro-European policy. The feelings of Donbas people had nothing to do with the Russian invasion. It was operation of Russian special forces which was then supported by Russian army. The infamous green people who bought their tanks in the shops around corner were just that.
If it had been absolutely clear that he had killed a lot of people, there would have been no problem with following the formal impeachment procedure, would there? But as it happened, there were not enough votes to pass that procedure, but the parliament deposed him anyway, without any basis in the constitution.
When politicians break the constitution and then argue that they have to do it in order to punish this very, very bad person, all my alarm bells go off and I start questioning all these politicians' claims. Including the claim that it is absolutely clear that this person has actually done these very, very bad things.
Your argument seems to be "DNR & LNR are artificial states because they were never independent before". I suggest you read the "Ukraine is like Ireland" blog post, which shows why this is simply not a good argument against any state.
We have been able to talk about Donbass as a separate region since about the time that coal mining started there. And for most of its history, Donbass has been largely inhabited by Russians and has been part of the state with its capital in Moscow/Saint Petersburg, not Kyiv. How on earth are you going to argue that it has always been part of Ukraine?
I made the tiniest effort to check if founders of Movement of Donbass are actually from Donbas. Guess what. Vladimir Kornilov is from Lipetsk in Don Valley. His brother's birthplace is not shown in Russian wiki. You have more of them not-Donbasian Russians fighting for Donbas, as proof of strong Donbasian separatist feeling?
But please at least do read this entry. Do they mention any actual political success (eg. winning election to local city council) of this movement? Right now as we speak, there are probably some people in California fantasising about "Free Republic of Berkeley", but are they a separatist movement? In politics you will probably find 3 persons for any crazy cause, and they might even score a wikipedia entry, especially if they write it from themselves.
Congrats, if you have read the article from the link you would have noticed International Movement of Donbass was dissolved in 2003, so couldn't justify claim of separatist movement existing in 2014 and deserving to unilaterally declare independence by russian operatives taking hostages.
Ireland had independent kingdoms before the Norman conquest. With kings, and stuff. It wasn't some wilderness settled by the English.
Similarly, your claim that the Donbas region has no history before the Russian workers started arriving to work in the mines by the end of the 19th century is false.
So you think that becoming an independent state should depend on the ability to make a plausibly-sounding claim of continuity with some ancient independent kingdoms? I prefer simpler methods. You know, like allowing the local population to vote in a referendum on whether or not they want to be independent.
How often do you want to hold this referendum? Do you want to hold it everywhere (just to be sure), or you would rather narrow it down to the areas with some precondition (such as: the pro-independence party has to rule at least 3 cities)? How can you be sure Birmingham does not want to secede from UK?
Having a previous history of being independent strengthens the claim.
Having a majority supporting independence is a necessity.
None of which was true for Donbas. See the poll results from April 2014 (from before Russian invasion), question "Do you support the idea, that your region should secede from Ukraine and join Russia?" - there's no majority for secession in any region, neither Donetsk or Luhansk: https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=news&id=258
"How on earth are you going to argue that it has always been part of Ukraine?"
You think you're so smart by asking this 'gotcha' question. Historical facts: "The region now known as the Donbas was largely unpopulated until the second half of the 17th century, when Don Cossacks established the first permanent settlements in the region." - obviously these were Russian Don Cossacks, right?
"Known for being "Wild Fields" (Ukrainian: дике поле, dyke pole), the area that is now called the Donbas was largely under the control of the Ukrainian Cossack Hetmanate and the Turkic Crimean Khanate until the mid-late 18th century, when the Russian Empire conquered the Hetmanate and annexed the Khanate"
Whaaaaaaat? Russians stole this land from Ukrainians in the 18th century? What an unexpected turn of events!
"Donetsk the most important city in the region today, was founded in 1869 by Welsh businessman John Hughes on the site of the old Zaporozhian Cossack town of Oleksandrivka."
Even better, looks like the Kingdom of Wales have a claim to Donetsk!
I'm morbidly curious what lie, manipulation or propaganda you'll come up with next.
OK, so you have just shown that before the region actually became Donbass, it was part of the Crimean Khanate and the Cossack Hetmanate for about 100 years, and then part of Russia proper for about 250 years or so. Even if we assume that the Cossack Hetmanate (which was a Russian protectorate) should be equated with Ukraine, I fail to see how this proves that Donbass has "always been part of Ukraine".
Kyiv also belonged to Poland for about 100 years, from 1569 to 1648. If 100 years sometime in the distant past is enough for you to claim that "Donbass has always been part of Ukraine", will you also claim that "Kyiv has always been part of Poland"?
First Roman Werpachowski wrote "Donbas, on the other hand, was always a part of Ukraine". And then, when I asked "How on earth are you going to argue that it has always been part of Ukraine?", you tried to come up with an answer to that question that seemed aimed at suggesting Ukraine's Eternal Historical Rights to Donbass, supposedly on the basis that the territory belonged to the Cossack Hetmanate for about 100 years.
Did you get fooled, like the UN, that Soviet Ukraine was an independent nation? I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't. The USSR was just another name for Russia, and Ukraine was an integral part of it.
Could you, please, specify what is your main point? What exactly are you trying to prove, diluting the topic of Donbas into some historical details?
There were no persecutions nor harassments of Donbas population by Ukrainian government, ever. In fact, Donbas was a problematic region from the very beginning of Ukraine's independence, and it's a lot to talk about it - for some knowledge, I recommend Alexandr Osipian's works available at academia(dot)edu. In very short - a bandit-ruled industrial region with far too much dependence on trades with Russia, never properly reformed after the collapse of USSR and its sick economy, (unlike Polish industry, for example - in socially very painful process, btw). There are lots of Ukrainians officials over more than two decades to blame for it, indeed. But if talking about some unfair relations, it's much more the other way around - far too high influence of Donbas, political and economical, on the rest of Ukraine. You can check the origin of Ukrainian politicians in charge since 1991. In short, and simplifying - the "natural" affinity of Donbas' and Russian policies made Russia hoping to keep Ukraine under her influence (have you seen any election results in Donbas before 2014? Have you heard about Orange Revolution and its causes?), and when that seemed to be failing (like, after Orange Revolution), they were starting to worry. With time, and brutality of the demography, the warm feelings to Russia went slowly colder and colder, as being mainly driven by the sentiment to Soviet times, strongly related to Ukrainian citizens' age.
That resulted in the violent consequence of 2013/2014 events. Young Ukrainians could not accept destroying their dreams to be a part of the West, and Yanukovytch was unable to restrain his barbaric nature in dealing with protesting citizens.
Now - are you trying to question the activity of Russia in the events from February 2014 on? When you mention "resulting war" - who do you try to blame for it? And, to make it more clear - are you trying to justify the further full-scale invasion on _entire_ Ukraine, with torturing civilians, and raping small children?
I condemn the Russian invasion. But there is probably no disagreement between us on that point, so I focus my comments on other things. I don't see the point of commenting just to pat each other on the back.
My main point is that I disagree with the narrative about how democratic and freedom-loving non-Russian Slavic nations are, Ukraine in particular. I remember reading the news in early 2014, when Donbass and Crimea were still under Ukrainian control. And all I heard from Ukrainian politicians was "Crimea is Ukraine", "Donbass is Ukraine". From democratic and freedom-loving politicians I would expect a message acknowledging that large parts of the country were unhappy with the changes that had just taken place in Kyiv, and a willingness to discuss about decentralisation, federalisation, autonomy, perhaps to be decided by a free and fair referendum – you know, standard solutions used in democratic countries. And I have heard nothing of the sort.
And I am not the one diluting the point by going into historical detail. Some of the arguments I've seen here are completely ridiculous, like "Donbass has always been part of Ukraine", so is it so strange that I respond with the "detail" that it was actually part of Russia for 250 years or so?
And I'm sorry to say that you also make some ridiculous claims, such as "There were no persecutions nor harassments of Donbas population by Ukrainian government, ever."
What would you call it, if not harassment of the Russian-speaking population, a large part of which lives in Donbass?
2017 Education Law:
"The 2017 education law provoked harsh reactions in Hungary, Romania, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria and other countries. [...] On 7 December 2017, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) stated that criticism of the law seemed justified, as the shift to all-Ukrainian secondary education could infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities. Moreover, according to the Venice Commission, allowing certain subjects to be taught in the official languages of the EU could discriminate against speakers of Russian, the most widely used non-state language."
2019 Law on Protecting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language:
"The law regulates the Ukrainian language in the media, education, and business aiming to strengthen its role in a country where much of the public still speaks Russian"
"Contrary to the minority languages which are EU official languages, Russian, Belarusian and Yiddish are granted no exemption for the purposes of the law."
"On 1 June 2019, [the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights] expressed concern about the absence of special legislation regulating the use of minority languages in Ukraine and criticised the distinction between minorities speaking an official EU language and other national minorities.
In December 2019 the Venice Commission said that several provisions of the law failed to strike a fair balance between promoting the Ukrainian language and safeguarding minorities' linguistic rights."
As I have no time for a long response now, I will limit it to few short general statements:
1. Your examples are post-2014, when Ukraine has been in de facto state of war with Russia, what never makes the best background for friendly gestures of tolerance and harmony towards those who are somehow associated with the enemy.
2. The separation of Donbas as the 2014 crisis aftermath was in fact a partial success in the overall Russian failure - similar movements were raised also in Kharkiv, Odessa, Mykolaiv, Zaporizhia And Dnipropietrovsk (today's name without the soviet-originated ending). If you look at the bigger picture you will see how little it all had to do with any dispute about the love for freedom within pre-war Ukraine.
3. Yes - Ukraine wasn't a paradise, not before or after 2014, neither is today. Yes, it had problems with rule of law, corruption, quality of democracy etc. But the discussion here is, in general, about Russian claims to interfere with Ukraine's teritorial and political integrity. And those who try to justify not only this, but also such savage and brutal invasion which Ukraine has been dealing with for almost a year so far.
"what never makes the best background for friendly gestures of tolerance and harmony towards those who are somehow associated with the enemy"
I suggest you read the blog post about how speaking Russian doesn't mean being Russian. Are you trying to say that Ukrainians are just like those stupid Westerners who cannot tell the difference between Russians and Russian speakers? I keep hearing from y'all that it was Igor Girkin's thugs who were the enemy, not the Russian-speaking Ukrainians, who were the ones actually affected by the new law.
"You wearing that thing on your head is one big 'fuck you' to the people who would've been your coworkers, except they perished in a blast right out there. So if you need to wear it, if you really need to, which is your right, you better be the best analyst we've ever seen."
Those are the words of Saul Berenson in third season of "Homeland", spoken to newly hired young muslim woman (with a hijab on her head) at the position of financial analyst in CIA. Soon after a terrorist attack on CIA headquarters, with nearly 300 dead. Muslim terrorist.
She was innocent, of course. It was not her fault how russian was sounding... pardon, how burqa was perceived those days. And Saul was emotionally agitated. Well, he was a bit rude, I admit - still, I kept thinking he's among the good guys in that entire show.
See my post on the 2017 "Education Law" and the 2019 "Law on Protecting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language", which have negatively affected all Russian-speaking Ukrainians, not just pro-Russian Ukrainians.
As for what happened in 2014, the key is what the people of Donbass and Crimea wanted at the time, and I feel like I don't know enough about that to have a clear view on whether Russia should be condemned or not. But given that even after the 2022 invasion it is possible to find pro-Russian people in western Ukraine, as the above report shows, I have no reason to believe your narrative that nobody in eastern Ukraine ever seriously wanted to join Russia.
I respect that you acknowledge your lack of knowledge, but... imagine a random guy who speaks no Spanish or Portuguese, never been to Latin America, couldn't point Paraguay and Uruguay on a map, etc., and he would even be kind enough to openly admit it. And yet, this would not stop him from being very opinionated about current Latin American politics, based on what he hastily googled or wiki'd.
How would you rate that Purely Hypothetical Dude (any similarity to any real person is purely coincindential!)
Being Slavic and having been to Lviv, Kyiv and Poltava, I don't feel at all like the Purely Hypothetical Dude. Last year I was talking to some Ukrainians from Lviv about politics in general and the Donbass in particular, and I asked them what people in eastern Ukraine thought about the war. And guess what, they didn't say "obviously they're against Russia, like all Ukrainians". Their conclusion was that it's unclear and complicated. A few years ago I met a Ukrainian girl from Donetsk who was very pro-Ukrainian, but who freely admitted that her family in Donetsk were pro-Russian, and she estimated that about 80% of the people in Donetsk were pro-Russian. That was after 2014, but prior to 2022. So when I say that I don't know what the people of Donbass want, it doesn't mean that I'm completely ignorant about the issue, it just means that the situation as portrayed by individual people seems complex and there are no reliable sources of information.
Such ridiculous and quite disgusting post makes me go back to my first question, which you answered apparently with a lie: what is your main point?
Because now I see your general opinion is, more less, like: "yes, I have some potential criticism against a country suddenly invading another one, with massive strike from air, sea and ground, engaging hundreds of thousands troops at once, within just few days leading to mass murder, torture and rape on civilians, and overall inhuman barbarism never seen since the darkest moments of WW2, but I need to hold on with my final opinion, until seeing a comprehensive research among locals, if maybe there will be possible to find a few testimonies with a bit ambigious criticism about the invasion, so I could revise the initial doubts".
I've said that I have to reserve my final opinion on what Russia did in *2014*, because it's not clear to me what the majority of people in Donbass wanted at that time. I've made it clear that I condemn the 2022 invasion.
And yes, what the local population wants is an important factor that can distinguish the "war of aggression" from the "war of liberation".
there is not much evidence how people felt at the time except polls before the Revolution of Dignity that clearly showed there is not much separatist sentiment.
Even if it was over 50% wanting to secede, this is not enough reason to send you operatives to pose as separatist and break away region.
And any evidence was swept away with 2014 invasion.
This cannot be argued in good faith.
You simply say "I don't know if there were separatist movement so I can't condemn russia for breaking away and controlling this region.
By this logic if tomorrow Germany invades Silesia, you could defend it too.
The Polish ethnic minority in Belarus have had it much worse under the Lukashenka regime than the Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Donbas, but Poland didn't support a separatist movement in Grodno and didn't send there "green men". And had it done so, it would have been roundly - and deservedly - condemned in Europe.
It's just Russia always being given a free pass to play by different rules than everyone else around.
Has Poland encouraged separatism in the Vilnius region? Has it sent there undercover operatives to launch an insurrection? No, because - after 1989 - it is a civilised country.
Lithuania did get quite lucky in 1991, compared to most other victims of Russian invasion in history, for a number of reasons. The USSR was collapsing and the orders might not have got through to the army. And Gorbachev may have been, after all, the most democratic leader of Russia/USSR in history. But it says something that the bar is set pretty low when the leader is "the most democratic" because he's responsible for "only" one invasion and the killing of "only" 13 civilians. But to be fair, he did recognise Lithuania's independence later that year – something no Russian leader before or since would have done.
And the "resulting war" in Donbas is a direct result of an escalation by Russia. If Russia hadn't sent weapons and armed militias to Donbas, we would have seen whether there would be protests, and if there were, how Ukraine would deal with them. Donbas is a bit different from the rest of Ukraine, and I would expect that after Euromaidan there would have been conflicts – conflicts on a level that's normal in civilised countries. Maybe the Ukrainian government would solve them in a democratic way, or maybe there would be some regulations that the people of Donbas wouldn't like. But there would have been no war, and the people of Donbas would have been free to express their disagreement. Unlike now, when they are treated as a cannon fodder by the Russian occupiers.
Lithuania was never a "breakaway region" and it didn't declare independence.
Lithuania (and Latvia and Estonia) were all independent countries that were illegally occupied in 1940 and in 1991 declared this annexation null and void.
This is why they Estonia and Latvia declare their independence day on the day of declaration of independence in 1918 and Lithuania celebrates the date from 13th century.
Date from 1991 is the "Day of restoration of Independence".
Problem with Donbas separatism propagandist (you fall there whether you do it on purpose or not, asking loaded questions and bringing false analogies is a way to propagandize) is
1. There is a bigger threshold for those who want switch countries than just secede. Basque and Kurds don't have their country. russians in Donbas can move to russia, Poles in Belarus and Lithuania can move to Poland if they want
2. Even if there was secessionist movement, you cannot defend 30% that want to split and take other 70% with them
3. If bigger, aggressive neighbor fuels most of the secessionist movement, then it is a hybrid war attempting to grab land not a genuine freedom seeking sentiment. Allowing that opens the doors of repeating this tactic everywhere, on every border.
4. Once bigger neighbors intervenes militarily (and 2014 was exactly that) all the sentiment record is wiped and there is no way to know it for ever, you cannot do any referendum today, because people who lived there are dead or displaced - mostly the side that didn't support the invasion.
russian "intervention" from 2014 means that only solution that is acceptable to the world is back to 1991 borders and no further discussion of secession - because otherwise you accept that sending special forces posing at separatists, genociding and scaring away local population and bringing in your own is a valid method of acquiring new territory.
I would also add that if one truly cares about the Russian minority in Donbas and Crimea, then the best option for them is both regions to remain part of Ukraine which becomes an EU member. Because then they'll be protected by the whole machinery of EU human rights oversight. The residents of Russian-occupied Donbas are being treated by Russia as 2nd class citizens (denied entry into Russia, for example), which highlights that even Russia doesn't really believe its own propaganda.
OK guys, I'm sorry in advance for going into the whataboutism territory, but what about Kosovo? I just want to understand if what you are saying are genuine views on how international relations should be and not just ad-hoc explanations that you want to apply only to Ukraine.
From my side, I can say that both the people of Donbass and the people of Kosovo should have the right to vote on their self-determination. And if the self-determination of the Kosovo Albanians is the result of a military intervention by NATO, that's unfortunate, but it's still better than keeping them under the Serbian rule against their will. I also completely reject the argument that "Kosovo Albanians can go to Albania if they don't like it in Serbia". That ignores a lot of factors in most people's lives that make it very difficult to move to another country just like that.
So, are you saying that once NATO has intervened in Kosovo, all the records of sentiment have been wiped out and there is no way of knowing for ever, you cannot have a referendum, and therefore Kosovo should be an unalterable part of Serbia?
NATO intervention in Kosovo and its subsequent secession has been caused by one thing: the Serbian genocidal campaign against Kosovo Albanians. The Serbs have only themselves to blame.
Had Ukraine sent murder squads to Donbas in 2014, we'd be having an entirely different conversation. But nothing like that happened.
There was a genocide in Bosnia, too, and yet it remained one country. Of course, in my opinion, such forced unity is a very bad idea. But at least it's consistent with the ideology that the immutability of the borders is more important than the will of the inhabitants of specific regions.
As I suspected, what you are presenting is not a consistent view, but just a conglomerate of ad-hoc views ("in Ukraine we apply this principle, and in Kosovo we apply that completely different principle"). Now I'm sure that if we were to discuss other difficult cases, you would just give me another ad-hoc explanation to justify your unprincipled beliefs.
You have apologized, in advance, for going into the whataboutism territory. Well - apologies not accepted.
People, or even entire institutions, make mistakes. I don't say it was a mistake what was decided about Kosovo, or Bosnia. But this is exactly what the whataboutism is. It simply doesn't matter.
The only way to have fair election in Donbas goes by removal of occuppying forces. Once paramilitaries invaded in 2014, there is simply no room to conduct fair election, so when you dream of such referendum - you either talk about fantasy never-never land or you try to justify the actions of Girkin and FSB,
I think I wrote twice (once in a comment, once in a post) what conditions do I need to accept separatism as legitimate. Why you keep asking this question and pretend you never saw the answer?
Of course, I agree, as any reasonable person would, that if there isn't a genuine separatist movement, then it makes no sense to talk about the right to secede. And while my experience of Ukraine and Ukrainians very strongly suggests that at least before 2022, there were a significant number of Ukrainians, especially in the south and east of the country, who were pro-Russian and strongly opposed to the pro-European course, I admit I hadn't heard of any actual separatism in Donbass before 2014 (unlike Crimea, where there were pro-Russian separatist parties that did very well in elections).
But none of the above makes mtg right, and it was his post that I was replying to. In particular, I strongly disagree with his principles that "pro-X separatists can move to country X", and that once a military aggression has taken place, all the records of sentiment are being been wiped out and the region in question should never ever be allowed to secede. These principles are ad-hoc and that is what my comment is saying.
Just for the record - I hope you know that all those "pro-Russian Ukrainians strongly opposed to the pro-European course" voted for Zelensky in 2019, right?
"pro-X separatists can move to country X" - you take it out of context. It is not that separatist pro-X have no right to secede - only that they have higher threshold to be seen as legitimate. Becaus ethey can move and because neighboring country may have been influencing it all along so the sentiment may not be authentic (like in Donbas)
"that once a military aggression has taken place, all the records of sentiment are being been wiped out and the region in question should never ever be allowed to secede"
I may have not been clear enough, because I assumed it's obvious, but once there is military intervention, you are unable to learn anything new. Any referendum after military intervention is pointless, all you are left with is historic record.
You can't make intervention and later ask for referendum, because original citizens are displaced or killed.
So you are left with 3 options: use data from before invasion (but you can't declare independence based on phone poll made on 1000 "randomly chosen" respondents), decide in favor of aggressor or decide against aggressor
It is russia that ruined any chance of referendum and authentic self determination of the region, not Ukraine.
All we can do is legitimaze 2014 and 2022 invasion or de-legitimize it.
And before you repeat "I can't condemn 2014 because I don't know the sentmient of people then" - that's the point. No one knows for sure.
You don't make military intervention based on "I don't know, maybe".
The "internationally unrecognized breakaway region of Lithuania" was in fact the illegally occupied sovereign country of Lithuania. It had been that since 1940, and was in the process of reasserting its independence. The West never recognized the annexation of the Baltic countries to the Soviet Union. Way to make the exact opposite point you intended.
Just a general comment FWIW: A commenter named Formosa appears to have interest in raising all kinds of difficult questions and conundra; Formosa argues valiantly for themselves and the legitimacy of their concerns. Suggest, if Formosa could take a rest and a breather, it could benefit both Formosa and everyone else in this forum, as well.
It's indirect - this time I use Chomsky as an example, but it could be a quote from Waters as well. The myth of "promise of no NATO expansion" is quite popular.
You are breaking my heart. Why are you in favor of NATO dissolution? All countries bordering Russia, from Norway to Turkey, want to be in NATO, because without it, Russian invasion is only a question of "when", not "if". It's the only way we can feel safe.
Maybe in some perfect world, NATO should be replaced by European military alliance. But we don't live in it. In our world, NATO has this crucial advantage that it already exists. Disbanding NATO and creating new alliance from scratch would leave us in temporary power vacuum. This means Russian soldiers coming to our cities to kill, rape, torture and steal toilet bowls. Can you blame us for our lack of enthusiasm for this scenario?
I apologize for leaving you heartbroken for so long.
I thought of it after your reply and I looked at the list of NATO interventions and, well, NATO is not a problem, or not a big one, in spite of the super-flop in Afghanistan (and the lots of killed civilians).
The problem is USA, which makes NATO a problem insofar as it is a USA-led military coalition. It is odd to back such an "Evil empire" (as RATM put it).
We should strive for a more balanced organization, even if that organization is still NATO. It would be better if it was the UNO and removing the veto power from their councils.
But I have to say that I don't buy that bit about "All countries bordering Russia, from Norway to Turkey, want to be in NATO" because neither Sweden nor Finland did want for some 70 years, in spite of the Winter War and Finland losing part of Karelia.
We definitely don't live in a perfect world, but we must aspire to something better than choosing between two evils.
During Cold War Sweden cooperated with NATO in secrecy as a part of a wider stay-behind network. Google for "Informationsbyran". It was so secret that some prime ministers were not aware of its existence. This is one of main theories regarding the Olaf Palme assasination: a rogue agent of IB did it.
After the Cold War there was a discussion in both coutries on maintaining neutrality. The full scale invasion in Ukraine rendered the "pro-neutral party" irrelevant, now both contries want to simply join NATO, ASAP.
I wouldn't be so sure that Afghan women in Kabul consider the 20 years of the US presence to be a super-flop. They were able to exercise some basic freedoms (such as the freedom to get education) that they didn't have before 2001 and haven't had since 2021.
A Russian occupation, on the other hand, doesn't bring any benefits to the local population.
Of course, afghan women were better off with a NATO-backed government than with the Taliban. Duh.
But, to spend 20 years to replace Taliban with... Taliban, well, if that's not a flop, then what is?
The film "Charlie Wilson's War" offers some possible reasons for that flop.
From my ignorance I hardly dare to challenge your assertion about the sterility of Russian occupation, but if the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan (does that count as Russian occupation, too?) was so bad, did USA really need to train and arm the Islamic fundamentalists?
About stealing your toilet bowls, that was hilarious even though I am not sure what you mean. Assuming you don't actually mean "chamber pots", was it just a random bit of playfulness, or does that quirky idea have a background history?
There are many things in the developed capitalist countries that we take for granted - for instance, having running water, refrigerator, indoor plumbing and a fully functional WC. They are not that obvious in Russia, not even in Moscow, but especially in the deep country, where most of the soldiers come from. So they steal bathroom & kitchen appliances from Ukraine, as they previously did when they invaded Poland, Lithuania etc. in 1939-1940. We see stories our grandfathers and grandmothers told us about - happening once again.
I believe this funny little misunderstanding shows perfectly why this substack is needed. What you thought was playful exaggeration was written in full seriousness. Yes, Russian soldiers looting Ukrainian homes steal not just playstations and fridges, but toilet bowls as well.
One reason why I thought that stuff about stealing toilet bowls was a joke is because that would be the last thing I would take from Poland. I have a trauma with Polish toilets!
The reason is that never before (and never since) had I seen an old German style toilet bowl. I had only encountered the standard French type, the hole-on-the-floor squatting type and very few English-type bowls.
When I was confronted for the first time with that anachronistic contraption, I rolled dices for sanity points. I wondered who in their sane mind would want to use that, let alone steal it.
The answer may come in the form of a joke, one that a Polish colleague told back then, in English for my sake:
How does a Siberian toilet look like? 2 wooden sticks: one, stuck in the snow, the ice or the soil, whatever is the case. This one is to hold on to.
The other stick is used to keep the wolfs at bay.
Only coming from that low standard would I understand that an old German style toilet bowl could be something worth looting.
when you are anti-imperial for your whole life you see the world only from an imperial perspective
This is Mr Waters, speaking for the worms: https://twitter.com/Dpol_un/status/1623338372449042432
latest bullshit: https://rogerwaters.com/berliner/
Westsplaining level: Expert
"There is a teenage Ukrainian girl, Alina, with whom I exchanged long letters: “I hear you. I understand your pain.” She answered me, thanked me, but stressed, I‘m sure you’re wrong about one thing though, “I am 200% certain there are no Nazis in Ukraine.” I replied again, “I’m sorry Alina, but you are wrong about that. How can you live in Ukraine and not know?”"
Hold on. I would agree if you picked other sentences, like maybe this one: "According to independent voices I listen to he governs carefully, making decisions on the grounds of a consensus in the Russian Federation government."
But claiming there are no Nazis anywhere, not just Ukraine, is preposterous nationalism. It's like saying "Spain is moron-free, 200% sure". Can't get more absurd.
Plus, a country at sustained odds with the post-USSR Russia, then at war (with all the polarization that comes with it), experiencing a revival of cuestionable figures from the past... You can argue that Nazis don't rule anything or that they aren't as relevant as some people want to put it, but you cannot in any rationality say what Alina said. Anyone, from any cardinal point, can refute Alina, because her claim is outrageous.
Take a look at the context. In the previous sentence he explains one of the reasons for why Putin launched the "special military operation": "We want to fight Nazism in Ukraine". So the question isn't really "are there any (neo-)Nazis in Ukraine at all?" (of course there are some, as there are in virtually every other European country), but it is "is there a (neo-)Nazi movement in Ukraine that is significant and influential enough to justify an invasion?". Sure, that's not what's being said literally, but it's the only reasonable interpretation. They are not scholars of political science discussing fringe political movements.
The internationally-unrecognized breakaway region of Lithuania got a much better treatment from the Russians than the internationally-unrecognized breakaway regions of Lugansk and Donetsk got from the Ukrainians. Only 13 civilians died in Lithuania in 1991, but the Soviet troops retreated just after a few days. On the other hand, Ukraine has been denying even potential possibility of giving independence to Donbass for many years, and thousands of civilians have been killed in the resulting war.
How much is Putler paying you?
I'm sorry, you're late for the first Godwin's law bonus points (well, that escalated quickly).
Instead of asking silly questions, I suggest you read my comment and point out if there are any factual inaccuracies. I came here to have a civil exchange of views.
I'm not going to waste my time on pointing out any "factual inaccuracies" because unlike you I'm not getting paid for it, and and you know full well that you came here to spout pro-Putler propaganda, Mr. Sea Lion.
Something is propaganda if it's false or misleading. So if you want to accuse me of spreading propaganda, all I ask is that you have the intellectual honesty to point out any inaccuracies in what I have written.
I'm afraid the inaccuracies lie rather in the things you've carefully *not* written. For example: how was Russia involved in this, could you remind us?
Sure! Russia directly supported the anti-Ukrainian movement in Donbass, just like the US directly supported anti-communist movements all over Eastern Europe in 1980s and early 1990s.
The main difference is:
"Independence to Lithuania" = "will of the Lithuanians"
"Independence to Donbas" = "Invasion of Russian Armed Forces".
Thank you for making this point. I will surely write a longer post about the myth of "breakaway regions". From what you write it seems you don't speak Russian - because even the Russian themselves do not pretend they believe this nonsense, they created it solely for the Western audience. In the Russian media and telegram channels there was a wave of obituaries for one Igor Mangushev, recently killed by unknown assailants. Russian sourcess are quite openly portraying him as one of the leaders of the 2014 invasion of Ukraine. If you can't read Russian, consider Google Translate - or just wait for my longer post. Many other well known Russian figures, such as Igor Girkin or Simon Pegov, also openly write about their participation in the 2014 invasion. Bottom line: there was never any "separatist movement" in Donbas. They were invaded by Russian paramilitaries who took control of some cities, terrorized local population and declared themselves the "separatist leaders".
Thank you for not jumping on the "your commanding officer told you to post here" bandwagon. Which is ridiculous because, as you rightly point out, I'm not even Russian. But I understand a little Russian and I'm trying to read opinions from both sides.
So to your point: am I supposed to believe that all the people in this picture, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine#/media/File%3A2014-03-08._%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3_%D0%B2_%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B5_015.jpg, are just actors or FSB employees sent to Donbass from Russia? I find this as ridiculous as some Russians claiming that Ukrainians didn't really protest during Euromaidan and that it was all staged by the CIA.
One thing is being unhappy with the election results and to protest against the newly elect government. I happen to be critical of my current government and I was also protesting on the streets against some of their decisions. It does not mean I would support secession or foreign invasion aimed to "liberate me"!. You seem to confuse "they were protesting against the new government" with "they wanted to secede". It's not the same. Don't you have anti-government protests in your country (whatever it is)?
These people weren't unhappy with the election results; there hadn't been any recent elections as of 2014-03-08. But there had been an unconstitutional removal of the president, which hadn't followed the formal impeachment process. You are from Poland, right? I've heard some Polish people saying they are so fed up with the current government breaking the constitution that they would happily secede and leave behind all those people in eastern Poland who vote for your ruling party. So I can imagine a similar feeling arising in Donbass at that time.
The moment you go "full Roger Waters" and tell me you know my country better than me is the moment we end this conversation. Please do not do it and just take my word: nobody in Poland "would happily secede". Yes, it could be a matter of joke (and this will probably be your next move: you will desperately google someone making this kind of remark on Twitter? once again, please do not do it). But no, there is no actual separatism. We (the ones who lost election) just grin our teeth and wait for the next election. Please also notice that we are unanimous on Russia and Ukraine. I might disagree with my government on everything else, but not on this topic.
And for the third time: don't tell me you know my country better than me.
This president fled the country, after first killing numerous people protesting against his policy and breach of earlier promises for pro-European policy. The feelings of Donbas people had nothing to do with the Russian invasion. It was operation of Russian special forces which was then supported by Russian army. The infamous green people who bought their tanks in the shops around corner were just that.
If it had been absolutely clear that he had killed a lot of people, there would have been no problem with following the formal impeachment procedure, would there? But as it happened, there were not enough votes to pass that procedure, but the parliament deposed him anyway, without any basis in the constitution.
When politicians break the constitution and then argue that they have to do it in order to punish this very, very bad person, all my alarm bells go off and I start questioning all these politicians' claims. Including the claim that it is absolutely clear that this person has actually done these very, very bad things.
"The internationally-unrecognized breakaway region of Lithuania"
You know that Lithuania was a sovereign country invaded by the Soviet Union during WW2?
And even after annexing it, the Soviets let it remain a separate Soviet Republic. It was never incorporated into Russian SSR.
Donbas, on the other hand, was always a part of Ukraine. Comparing its history with one of Lithuania is crazy.
If you want to see how Russia acted in the 90s when a part of it tried to secede, look up what they did with Chechnya.
Surely he must know this, and yet still he pretends that sovereignity of Lithuania and Donbas is comparable. Like I said, Putler's lapdog.
Your argument seems to be "DNR & LNR are artificial states because they were never independent before". I suggest you read the "Ukraine is like Ireland" blog post, which shows why this is simply not a good argument against any state.
We have been able to talk about Donbass as a separate region since about the time that coal mining started there. And for most of its history, Donbass has been largely inhabited by Russians and has been part of the state with its capital in Moscow/Saint Petersburg, not Kyiv. How on earth are you going to argue that it has always been part of Ukraine?
I only argue that prior to Girkin's invasion, there was no "separatist movement in Donbas", therefore the analogy with Lithuania is cockamamie.
"prior to Girkin's invasion, there was no "separatist movement in Donbas""
That is not entirely true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Movement_of_Donbass
Thank you for that link! I almost got fooled by those who claimed that Donbass separatism had been invented by Igor Girkin.
I made the tiniest effort to check if founders of Movement of Donbass are actually from Donbas. Guess what. Vladimir Kornilov is from Lipetsk in Don Valley. His brother's birthplace is not shown in Russian wiki. You have more of them not-Donbasian Russians fighting for Donbas, as proof of strong Donbasian separatist feeling?
But please at least do read this entry. Do they mention any actual political success (eg. winning election to local city council) of this movement? Right now as we speak, there are probably some people in California fantasising about "Free Republic of Berkeley", but are they a separatist movement? In politics you will probably find 3 persons for any crazy cause, and they might even score a wikipedia entry, especially if they write it from themselves.
Congrats, if you have read the article from the link you would have noticed International Movement of Donbass was dissolved in 2003, so couldn't justify claim of separatist movement existing in 2014 and deserving to unilaterally declare independence by russian operatives taking hostages.
Ireland had independent kingdoms before the Norman conquest. With kings, and stuff. It wasn't some wilderness settled by the English.
Similarly, your claim that the Donbas region has no history before the Russian workers started arriving to work in the mines by the end of the 19th century is false.
So you think that becoming an independent state should depend on the ability to make a plausibly-sounding claim of continuity with some ancient independent kingdoms? I prefer simpler methods. You know, like allowing the local population to vote in a referendum on whether or not they want to be independent.
How often do you want to hold this referendum? Do you want to hold it everywhere (just to be sure), or you would rather narrow it down to the areas with some precondition (such as: the pro-independence party has to rule at least 3 cities)? How can you be sure Birmingham does not want to secede from UK?
Having a previous history of being independent strengthens the claim.
Having a majority supporting independence is a necessity.
None of which was true for Donbas. See the poll results from April 2014 (from before Russian invasion), question "Do you support the idea, that your region should secede from Ukraine and join Russia?" - there's no majority for secession in any region, neither Donetsk or Luhansk: https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=news&id=258
"How on earth are you going to argue that it has always been part of Ukraine?"
You think you're so smart by asking this 'gotcha' question. Historical facts: "The region now known as the Donbas was largely unpopulated until the second half of the 17th century, when Don Cossacks established the first permanent settlements in the region." - obviously these were Russian Don Cossacks, right?
"Known for being "Wild Fields" (Ukrainian: дике поле, dyke pole), the area that is now called the Donbas was largely under the control of the Ukrainian Cossack Hetmanate and the Turkic Crimean Khanate until the mid-late 18th century, when the Russian Empire conquered the Hetmanate and annexed the Khanate"
Whaaaaaaat? Russians stole this land from Ukrainians in the 18th century? What an unexpected turn of events!
"Donetsk the most important city in the region today, was founded in 1869 by Welsh businessman John Hughes on the site of the old Zaporozhian Cossack town of Oleksandrivka."
Even better, looks like the Kingdom of Wales have a claim to Donetsk!
I'm morbidly curious what lie, manipulation or propaganda you'll come up with next.
OK, so you have just shown that before the region actually became Donbass, it was part of the Crimean Khanate and the Cossack Hetmanate for about 100 years, and then part of Russia proper for about 250 years or so. Even if we assume that the Cossack Hetmanate (which was a Russian protectorate) should be equated with Ukraine, I fail to see how this proves that Donbass has "always been part of Ukraine".
Kyiv also belonged to Poland for about 100 years, from 1569 to 1648. If 100 years sometime in the distant past is enough for you to claim that "Donbass has always been part of Ukraine", will you also claim that "Kyiv has always been part of Poland"?
Who here says Donbass has "always been part of Ukraine"? Quote that specific person.
First Roman Werpachowski wrote "Donbas, on the other hand, was always a part of Ukraine". And then, when I asked "How on earth are you going to argue that it has always been part of Ukraine?", you tried to come up with an answer to that question that seemed aimed at suggesting Ukraine's Eternal Historical Rights to Donbass, supposedly on the basis that the territory belonged to the Cossack Hetmanate for about 100 years.
Part of Russia for 250 years? There are only 158 years between 1764 (Hetmanate) and 1922 (Soviet Ukraine).
Did you get fooled, like the UN, that Soviet Ukraine was an independent nation? I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't. The USSR was just another name for Russia, and Ukraine was an integral part of it.
Could you, please, specify what is your main point? What exactly are you trying to prove, diluting the topic of Donbas into some historical details?
There were no persecutions nor harassments of Donbas population by Ukrainian government, ever. In fact, Donbas was a problematic region from the very beginning of Ukraine's independence, and it's a lot to talk about it - for some knowledge, I recommend Alexandr Osipian's works available at academia(dot)edu. In very short - a bandit-ruled industrial region with far too much dependence on trades with Russia, never properly reformed after the collapse of USSR and its sick economy, (unlike Polish industry, for example - in socially very painful process, btw). There are lots of Ukrainians officials over more than two decades to blame for it, indeed. But if talking about some unfair relations, it's much more the other way around - far too high influence of Donbas, political and economical, on the rest of Ukraine. You can check the origin of Ukrainian politicians in charge since 1991. In short, and simplifying - the "natural" affinity of Donbas' and Russian policies made Russia hoping to keep Ukraine under her influence (have you seen any election results in Donbas before 2014? Have you heard about Orange Revolution and its causes?), and when that seemed to be failing (like, after Orange Revolution), they were starting to worry. With time, and brutality of the demography, the warm feelings to Russia went slowly colder and colder, as being mainly driven by the sentiment to Soviet times, strongly related to Ukrainian citizens' age.
That resulted in the violent consequence of 2013/2014 events. Young Ukrainians could not accept destroying their dreams to be a part of the West, and Yanukovytch was unable to restrain his barbaric nature in dealing with protesting citizens.
Now - are you trying to question the activity of Russia in the events from February 2014 on? When you mention "resulting war" - who do you try to blame for it? And, to make it more clear - are you trying to justify the further full-scale invasion on _entire_ Ukraine, with torturing civilians, and raping small children?
He's "just asking questions" :D
I condemn the Russian invasion. But there is probably no disagreement between us on that point, so I focus my comments on other things. I don't see the point of commenting just to pat each other on the back.
My main point is that I disagree with the narrative about how democratic and freedom-loving non-Russian Slavic nations are, Ukraine in particular. I remember reading the news in early 2014, when Donbass and Crimea were still under Ukrainian control. And all I heard from Ukrainian politicians was "Crimea is Ukraine", "Donbass is Ukraine". From democratic and freedom-loving politicians I would expect a message acknowledging that large parts of the country were unhappy with the changes that had just taken place in Kyiv, and a willingness to discuss about decentralisation, federalisation, autonomy, perhaps to be decided by a free and fair referendum – you know, standard solutions used in democratic countries. And I have heard nothing of the sort.
And I am not the one diluting the point by going into historical detail. Some of the arguments I've seen here are completely ridiculous, like "Donbass has always been part of Ukraine", so is it so strange that I respond with the "detail" that it was actually part of Russia for 250 years or so?
And I'm sorry to say that you also make some ridiculous claims, such as "There were no persecutions nor harassments of Donbas population by Ukrainian government, ever."
Take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine
What would you call it, if not harassment of the Russian-speaking population, a large part of which lives in Donbass?
2017 Education Law:
"The 2017 education law provoked harsh reactions in Hungary, Romania, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria and other countries. [...] On 7 December 2017, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) stated that criticism of the law seemed justified, as the shift to all-Ukrainian secondary education could infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities. Moreover, according to the Venice Commission, allowing certain subjects to be taught in the official languages of the EU could discriminate against speakers of Russian, the most widely used non-state language."
2019 Law on Protecting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language:
"The law regulates the Ukrainian language in the media, education, and business aiming to strengthen its role in a country where much of the public still speaks Russian"
"Contrary to the minority languages which are EU official languages, Russian, Belarusian and Yiddish are granted no exemption for the purposes of the law."
"On 1 June 2019, [the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights] expressed concern about the absence of special legislation regulating the use of minority languages in Ukraine and criticised the distinction between minorities speaking an official EU language and other national minorities.
In December 2019 the Venice Commission said that several provisions of the law failed to strike a fair balance between promoting the Ukrainian language and safeguarding minorities' linguistic rights."
As I have no time for a long response now, I will limit it to few short general statements:
1. Your examples are post-2014, when Ukraine has been in de facto state of war with Russia, what never makes the best background for friendly gestures of tolerance and harmony towards those who are somehow associated with the enemy.
2. The separation of Donbas as the 2014 crisis aftermath was in fact a partial success in the overall Russian failure - similar movements were raised also in Kharkiv, Odessa, Mykolaiv, Zaporizhia And Dnipropietrovsk (today's name without the soviet-originated ending). If you look at the bigger picture you will see how little it all had to do with any dispute about the love for freedom within pre-war Ukraine.
3. Yes - Ukraine wasn't a paradise, not before or after 2014, neither is today. Yes, it had problems with rule of law, corruption, quality of democracy etc. But the discussion here is, in general, about Russian claims to interfere with Ukraine's teritorial and political integrity. And those who try to justify not only this, but also such savage and brutal invasion which Ukraine has been dealing with for almost a year so far.
"what never makes the best background for friendly gestures of tolerance and harmony towards those who are somehow associated with the enemy"
I suggest you read the blog post about how speaking Russian doesn't mean being Russian. Are you trying to say that Ukrainians are just like those stupid Westerners who cannot tell the difference between Russians and Russian speakers? I keep hearing from y'all that it was Igor Girkin's thugs who were the enemy, not the Russian-speaking Ukrainians, who were the ones actually affected by the new law.
"You wearing that thing on your head is one big 'fuck you' to the people who would've been your coworkers, except they perished in a blast right out there. So if you need to wear it, if you really need to, which is your right, you better be the best analyst we've ever seen."
Those are the words of Saul Berenson in third season of "Homeland", spoken to newly hired young muslim woman (with a hijab on her head) at the position of financial analyst in CIA. Soon after a terrorist attack on CIA headquarters, with nearly 300 dead. Muslim terrorist.
She was innocent, of course. It was not her fault how russian was sounding... pardon, how burqa was perceived those days. And Saul was emotionally agitated. Well, he was a bit rude, I admit - still, I kept thinking he's among the good guys in that entire show.
you claim you heard people from western Ukraine speaking bad things about those who are trying to side with russia.
Not about russian speaking Ukrainians.
You are mixing it.
See my post on the 2017 "Education Law" and the 2019 "Law on Protecting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language", which have negatively affected all Russian-speaking Ukrainians, not just pro-Russian Ukrainians.
Which invasion do you condemn? The one from 2014, the one from 2022 or both?
I condemn the invasion of 2022, because it looks like the Russians are seen as invaders by most Ukrainians. Although even here I'm not so sure, given reports like this one: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2022-03-17/ty-article-magazine/.premium/escape-from-kyiv-i-drove-the-long-and-hopeless-road-to-poland/00000180-5bd1-de8c-a1aa-dbf9937a0000
As for what happened in 2014, the key is what the people of Donbass and Crimea wanted at the time, and I feel like I don't know enough about that to have a clear view on whether Russia should be condemned or not. But given that even after the 2022 invasion it is possible to find pro-Russian people in western Ukraine, as the above report shows, I have no reason to believe your narrative that nobody in eastern Ukraine ever seriously wanted to join Russia.
I respect that you acknowledge your lack of knowledge, but... imagine a random guy who speaks no Spanish or Portuguese, never been to Latin America, couldn't point Paraguay and Uruguay on a map, etc., and he would even be kind enough to openly admit it. And yet, this would not stop him from being very opinionated about current Latin American politics, based on what he hastily googled or wiki'd.
How would you rate that Purely Hypothetical Dude (any similarity to any real person is purely coincindential!)
Being Slavic and having been to Lviv, Kyiv and Poltava, I don't feel at all like the Purely Hypothetical Dude. Last year I was talking to some Ukrainians from Lviv about politics in general and the Donbass in particular, and I asked them what people in eastern Ukraine thought about the war. And guess what, they didn't say "obviously they're against Russia, like all Ukrainians". Their conclusion was that it's unclear and complicated. A few years ago I met a Ukrainian girl from Donetsk who was very pro-Ukrainian, but who freely admitted that her family in Donetsk were pro-Russian, and she estimated that about 80% of the people in Donetsk were pro-Russian. That was after 2014, but prior to 2022. So when I say that I don't know what the people of Donbass want, it doesn't mean that I'm completely ignorant about the issue, it just means that the situation as portrayed by individual people seems complex and there are no reliable sources of information.
Such ridiculous and quite disgusting post makes me go back to my first question, which you answered apparently with a lie: what is your main point?
Because now I see your general opinion is, more less, like: "yes, I have some potential criticism against a country suddenly invading another one, with massive strike from air, sea and ground, engaging hundreds of thousands troops at once, within just few days leading to mass murder, torture and rape on civilians, and overall inhuman barbarism never seen since the darkest moments of WW2, but I need to hold on with my final opinion, until seeing a comprehensive research among locals, if maybe there will be possible to find a few testimonies with a bit ambigious criticism about the invasion, so I could revise the initial doubts".
I've said that I have to reserve my final opinion on what Russia did in *2014*, because it's not clear to me what the majority of people in Donbass wanted at that time. I've made it clear that I condemn the 2022 invasion.
And yes, what the local population wants is an important factor that can distinguish the "war of aggression" from the "war of liberation".
there is not much evidence how people felt at the time except polls before the Revolution of Dignity that clearly showed there is not much separatist sentiment.
Even if it was over 50% wanting to secede, this is not enough reason to send you operatives to pose as separatist and break away region.
And any evidence was swept away with 2014 invasion.
This cannot be argued in good faith.
You simply say "I don't know if there were separatist movement so I can't condemn russia for breaking away and controlling this region.
By this logic if tomorrow Germany invades Silesia, you could defend it too.
The Polish ethnic minority in Belarus have had it much worse under the Lukashenka regime than the Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Donbas, but Poland didn't support a separatist movement in Grodno and didn't send there "green men". And had it done so, it would have been roundly - and deservedly - condemned in Europe.
It's just Russia always being given a free pass to play by different rules than everyone else around.
Similarly, the Council of Europe criticised Lithuania for violating certain rights of the Polish minority (incl. language, but also property rights): https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168008bed4
Has Poland encouraged separatism in the Vilnius region? Has it sent there undercover operatives to launch an insurrection? No, because - after 1989 - it is a civilised country.
Russia isn't.
Lithuania did get quite lucky in 1991, compared to most other victims of Russian invasion in history, for a number of reasons. The USSR was collapsing and the orders might not have got through to the army. And Gorbachev may have been, after all, the most democratic leader of Russia/USSR in history. But it says something that the bar is set pretty low when the leader is "the most democratic" because he's responsible for "only" one invasion and the killing of "only" 13 civilians. But to be fair, he did recognise Lithuania's independence later that year – something no Russian leader before or since would have done.
And the "resulting war" in Donbas is a direct result of an escalation by Russia. If Russia hadn't sent weapons and armed militias to Donbas, we would have seen whether there would be protests, and if there were, how Ukraine would deal with them. Donbas is a bit different from the rest of Ukraine, and I would expect that after Euromaidan there would have been conflicts – conflicts on a level that's normal in civilised countries. Maybe the Ukrainian government would solve them in a democratic way, or maybe there would be some regulations that the people of Donbas wouldn't like. But there would have been no war, and the people of Donbas would have been free to express their disagreement. Unlike now, when they are treated as a cannon fodder by the Russian occupiers.
Lithuania was never a "breakaway region" and it didn't declare independence.
Lithuania (and Latvia and Estonia) were all independent countries that were illegally occupied in 1940 and in 1991 declared this annexation null and void.
This is why they Estonia and Latvia declare their independence day on the day of declaration of independence in 1918 and Lithuania celebrates the date from 13th century.
Date from 1991 is the "Day of restoration of Independence".
Problem with Donbas separatism propagandist (you fall there whether you do it on purpose or not, asking loaded questions and bringing false analogies is a way to propagandize) is
1. There is a bigger threshold for those who want switch countries than just secede. Basque and Kurds don't have their country. russians in Donbas can move to russia, Poles in Belarus and Lithuania can move to Poland if they want
2. Even if there was secessionist movement, you cannot defend 30% that want to split and take other 70% with them
3. If bigger, aggressive neighbor fuels most of the secessionist movement, then it is a hybrid war attempting to grab land not a genuine freedom seeking sentiment. Allowing that opens the doors of repeating this tactic everywhere, on every border.
4. Once bigger neighbors intervenes militarily (and 2014 was exactly that) all the sentiment record is wiped and there is no way to know it for ever, you cannot do any referendum today, because people who lived there are dead or displaced - mostly the side that didn't support the invasion.
russian "intervention" from 2014 means that only solution that is acceptable to the world is back to 1991 borders and no further discussion of secession - because otherwise you accept that sending special forces posing at separatists, genociding and scaring away local population and bringing in your own is a valid method of acquiring new territory.
I would also add that if one truly cares about the Russian minority in Donbas and Crimea, then the best option for them is both regions to remain part of Ukraine which becomes an EU member. Because then they'll be protected by the whole machinery of EU human rights oversight. The residents of Russian-occupied Donbas are being treated by Russia as 2nd class citizens (denied entry into Russia, for example), which highlights that even Russia doesn't really believe its own propaganda.
OK guys, I'm sorry in advance for going into the whataboutism territory, but what about Kosovo? I just want to understand if what you are saying are genuine views on how international relations should be and not just ad-hoc explanations that you want to apply only to Ukraine.
From my side, I can say that both the people of Donbass and the people of Kosovo should have the right to vote on their self-determination. And if the self-determination of the Kosovo Albanians is the result of a military intervention by NATO, that's unfortunate, but it's still better than keeping them under the Serbian rule against their will. I also completely reject the argument that "Kosovo Albanians can go to Albania if they don't like it in Serbia". That ignores a lot of factors in most people's lives that make it very difficult to move to another country just like that.
So, are you saying that once NATO has intervened in Kosovo, all the records of sentiment have been wiped out and there is no way of knowing for ever, you cannot have a referendum, and therefore Kosovo should be an unalterable part of Serbia?
NATO intervention in Kosovo and its subsequent secession has been caused by one thing: the Serbian genocidal campaign against Kosovo Albanians. The Serbs have only themselves to blame.
Had Ukraine sent murder squads to Donbas in 2014, we'd be having an entirely different conversation. But nothing like that happened.
There was a genocide in Bosnia, too, and yet it remained one country. Of course, in my opinion, such forced unity is a very bad idea. But at least it's consistent with the ideology that the immutability of the borders is more important than the will of the inhabitants of specific regions.
As I suspected, what you are presenting is not a consistent view, but just a conglomerate of ad-hoc views ("in Ukraine we apply this principle, and in Kosovo we apply that completely different principle"). Now I'm sure that if we were to discuss other difficult cases, you would just give me another ad-hoc explanation to justify your unprincipled beliefs.
You have apologized, in advance, for going into the whataboutism territory. Well - apologies not accepted.
People, or even entire institutions, make mistakes. I don't say it was a mistake what was decided about Kosovo, or Bosnia. But this is exactly what the whataboutism is. It simply doesn't matter.
Who carried out genocide in Bosnia? The Serbs. Is Bosnia part of Serbia now? It's not. Where's your contradiction?
The only way to have fair election in Donbas goes by removal of occuppying forces. Once paramilitaries invaded in 2014, there is simply no room to conduct fair election, so when you dream of such referendum - you either talk about fantasy never-never land or you try to justify the actions of Girkin and FSB,
I think I wrote twice (once in a comment, once in a post) what conditions do I need to accept separatism as legitimate. Why you keep asking this question and pretend you never saw the answer?
Of course, I agree, as any reasonable person would, that if there isn't a genuine separatist movement, then it makes no sense to talk about the right to secede. And while my experience of Ukraine and Ukrainians very strongly suggests that at least before 2022, there were a significant number of Ukrainians, especially in the south and east of the country, who were pro-Russian and strongly opposed to the pro-European course, I admit I hadn't heard of any actual separatism in Donbass before 2014 (unlike Crimea, where there were pro-Russian separatist parties that did very well in elections).
But none of the above makes mtg right, and it was his post that I was replying to. In particular, I strongly disagree with his principles that "pro-X separatists can move to country X", and that once a military aggression has taken place, all the records of sentiment are being been wiped out and the region in question should never ever be allowed to secede. These principles are ad-hoc and that is what my comment is saying.
Just for the record - I hope you know that all those "pro-Russian Ukrainians strongly opposed to the pro-European course" voted for Zelensky in 2019, right?
"where there were pro-Russian separatist parties that did very well in election" - wait wait wait, can you name them? Their leaders?
you lie about my post.
"pro-X separatists can move to country X" - you take it out of context. It is not that separatist pro-X have no right to secede - only that they have higher threshold to be seen as legitimate. Becaus ethey can move and because neighboring country may have been influencing it all along so the sentiment may not be authentic (like in Donbas)
"that once a military aggression has taken place, all the records of sentiment are being been wiped out and the region in question should never ever be allowed to secede"
I may have not been clear enough, because I assumed it's obvious, but once there is military intervention, you are unable to learn anything new. Any referendum after military intervention is pointless, all you are left with is historic record.
You can't make intervention and later ask for referendum, because original citizens are displaced or killed.
So you are left with 3 options: use data from before invasion (but you can't declare independence based on phone poll made on 1000 "randomly chosen" respondents), decide in favor of aggressor or decide against aggressor
It is russia that ruined any chance of referendum and authentic self determination of the region, not Ukraine.
All we can do is legitimaze 2014 and 2022 invasion or de-legitimize it.
And before you repeat "I can't condemn 2014 because I don't know the sentmient of people then" - that's the point. No one knows for sure.
You don't make military intervention based on "I don't know, maybe".
The "internationally unrecognized breakaway region of Lithuania" was in fact the illegally occupied sovereign country of Lithuania. It had been that since 1940, and was in the process of reasserting its independence. The West never recognized the annexation of the Baltic countries to the Soviet Union. Way to make the exact opposite point you intended.
*countires -> countries
Just a general comment FWIW: A commenter named Formosa appears to have interest in raising all kinds of difficult questions and conundra; Formosa argues valiantly for themselves and the legitimacy of their concerns. Suggest, if Formosa could take a rest and a breather, it could benefit both Formosa and everyone else in this forum, as well.
Are you aware that nothing in this article explains your subtitle reference to Roger Waters?
Yeah, this is me focusing on the important stuff: 🤡
It's indirect - this time I use Chomsky as an example, but it could be a quote from Waters as well. The myth of "promise of no NATO expansion" is quite popular.
Yes, it's a recurring argument om this side of Europe (in the leftist circles, of course).
And, although I saw a point in "NATO should have dissolved after the cold war, like Warsaw pact did", I see now that it's a reductionist argument.
I'm still in favor of NATO dissolution, anyway, but I don't buy the argument of "the promises to Gorbachev" anymore.
You are breaking my heart. Why are you in favor of NATO dissolution? All countries bordering Russia, from Norway to Turkey, want to be in NATO, because without it, Russian invasion is only a question of "when", not "if". It's the only way we can feel safe.
Maybe in some perfect world, NATO should be replaced by European military alliance. But we don't live in it. In our world, NATO has this crucial advantage that it already exists. Disbanding NATO and creating new alliance from scratch would leave us in temporary power vacuum. This means Russian soldiers coming to our cities to kill, rape, torture and steal toilet bowls. Can you blame us for our lack of enthusiasm for this scenario?
I apologize for leaving you heartbroken for so long.
I thought of it after your reply and I looked at the list of NATO interventions and, well, NATO is not a problem, or not a big one, in spite of the super-flop in Afghanistan (and the lots of killed civilians).
The problem is USA, which makes NATO a problem insofar as it is a USA-led military coalition. It is odd to back such an "Evil empire" (as RATM put it).
We should strive for a more balanced organization, even if that organization is still NATO. It would be better if it was the UNO and removing the veto power from their councils.
But I have to say that I don't buy that bit about "All countries bordering Russia, from Norway to Turkey, want to be in NATO" because neither Sweden nor Finland did want for some 70 years, in spite of the Winter War and Finland losing part of Karelia.
We definitely don't live in a perfect world, but we must aspire to something better than choosing between two evils.
During Cold War Sweden cooperated with NATO in secrecy as a part of a wider stay-behind network. Google for "Informationsbyran". It was so secret that some prime ministers were not aware of its existence. This is one of main theories regarding the Olaf Palme assasination: a rogue agent of IB did it.
Finland was forbbidden to join NATO by a treaty imposed on them in 1948: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948
After the Cold War there was a discussion in both coutries on maintaining neutrality. The full scale invasion in Ukraine rendered the "pro-neutral party" irrelevant, now both contries want to simply join NATO, ASAP.
I wouldn't be so sure that Afghan women in Kabul consider the 20 years of the US presence to be a super-flop. They were able to exercise some basic freedoms (such as the freedom to get education) that they didn't have before 2001 and haven't had since 2021.
A Russian occupation, on the other hand, doesn't bring any benefits to the local population.
Of course, afghan women were better off with a NATO-backed government than with the Taliban. Duh.
But, to spend 20 years to replace Taliban with... Taliban, well, if that's not a flop, then what is?
The film "Charlie Wilson's War" offers some possible reasons for that flop.
From my ignorance I hardly dare to challenge your assertion about the sterility of Russian occupation, but if the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan (does that count as Russian occupation, too?) was so bad, did USA really need to train and arm the Islamic fundamentalists?
About stealing your toilet bowls, that was hilarious even though I am not sure what you mean. Assuming you don't actually mean "chamber pots", was it just a random bit of playfulness, or does that quirky idea have a background history?
There are many things in the developed capitalist countries that we take for granted - for instance, having running water, refrigerator, indoor plumbing and a fully functional WC. They are not that obvious in Russia, not even in Moscow, but especially in the deep country, where most of the soldiers come from. So they steal bathroom & kitchen appliances from Ukraine, as they previously did when they invaded Poland, Lithuania etc. in 1939-1940. We see stories our grandfathers and grandmothers told us about - happening once again.
I believe this funny little misunderstanding shows perfectly why this substack is needed. What you thought was playful exaggeration was written in full seriousness. Yes, Russian soldiers looting Ukrainian homes steal not just playstations and fridges, but toilet bowls as well.
Yes, somehow we prefer NATO forces
One reason why I thought that stuff about stealing toilet bowls was a joke is because that would be the last thing I would take from Poland. I have a trauma with Polish toilets!
The reason is that never before (and never since) had I seen an old German style toilet bowl. I had only encountered the standard French type, the hole-on-the-floor squatting type and very few English-type bowls.
(If you have no idea what I'm talking about:
https://wonderfulengineering.com/know-german-toilet-design-different-rest-world-wisdom-behind/)
When I was confronted for the first time with that anachronistic contraption, I rolled dices for sanity points. I wondered who in their sane mind would want to use that, let alone steal it.
The answer may come in the form of a joke, one that a Polish colleague told back then, in English for my sake:
How does a Siberian toilet look like? 2 wooden sticks: one, stuck in the snow, the ice or the soil, whatever is the case. This one is to hold on to.
The other stick is used to keep the wolfs at bay.
Only coming from that low standard would I understand that an old German style toilet bowl could be something worth looting.