6 ms·

> Ah it’s Ukrainian leaders fault that they were invaded and had their territory annexed? Let me remind you what happened in 2014. The Ukrainian leaders of the

> Ah it’s Ukrainian leaders fault that they were invaded and had their territory annexed? Let me remind you what happened in 2014. The Ukrainian leaders of the successful armed coup did pass a bill to prohibit official use of minority languages on the eastern part of the country (dominated by Russian-speaking population) on a Sunday morning of February 23, 2014. It happened a day after their legitimately elected president (recognised by OSCE and PACE) had to flee the country. It was clearly a period of political crisis and no one was supposed to work and enact any legislation on that weekend day in the first place. No one was supposed to pass a bill of that significance without extended debates and a referendum specifically. But the coup leaders decided to move forward with it nonetheless. Russian troops legally stationed in Crimea took over the peninsula 4 days after that punitive act of the Ukraine government against its own russian-speaking population of the eastern part of the country. The reinforcement from Russia were only sent 6 days after the event, as the Kiyv regime decided to escalate. So yeah, that was utter barbarism on behalf of the coup leaders of Ukraine.

lisasays 3y ago
In other words: "Yes".
- ghostwriter 3y ago
  In other words you sound like an offended Ukrainian who got registered "77 days ago" and who had constantly been denying everything that didn't fit your agenda, including the political stance of your government prior 2014.
padjo 3y ago
So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour an acceptable response is to annex territory and then launch a full scale invasion and attempt to decapitate their leadership?
- ghostwriter 3y ago
  > So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour I see how nicely you downplay the armed coup and the ethnic discrimination against former citizens of one of the sides (who voted to remain a single country in the past [1]) into a mere "political situation of a neighbour". However, that same argument wouldn't work for you on this same forum if you dared to suggest that NATO's "intervening into the political situation of Yugoslavia" wasn't OK. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#U...
  - padjo 3y ago
    I’m not downplaying, I disagree with characterising it as an armed coup but figured there’s no point in even talking to you about that. So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery? I’m guessing from your tone you thing NATO involvement in Yugoslavia was bad? And you see Russian involvement in Ukraine as equivalent so…
    - ghostwriter 3y ago
      > So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery? The thing that you call "whataboutery" is the basis of the Socratic method that every student who attended Philosophy 101 understands as an essential form of argument-building. Unfortunately to you, the whining of "whataboutery" that you've just demonstrated cannot serve as a rebuttal of anything but your aptitude for argument elaboration.
      - padjo 3y ago
        Nope it’s ad hominem and a propaganda technique used when your argument is flimsy. There’s nothing essential about it, you could discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own but instead you had to try to obfuscate and distract by expanding to Yugoslavia. What Russia is doing right now in Ukraine is disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible.
        ghostwriter 3y ago

lisasays 3y ago

In other words: "Yes".

ghostwriter 3y ago
In other words you sound like an offended Ukrainian who got registered "77 days ago" and who had constantly been denying everything that didn't fit your agenda, including the political stance of your government prior 2014.

padjo 3y ago

So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour an acceptable response is to annex territory and then launch a full scale invasion and attempt to decapitate their leadership?

ghostwriter 3y ago
> So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour I see how nicely you downplay the armed coup and the ethnic discrimination against former citizens of one of the sides (who voted to remain a single country in the past [1]) into a mere "political situation of a neighbour". However, that same argument wouldn't work for you on this same forum if you dared to suggest that NATO's "intervening into the political situation of Yugoslavia" wasn't OK. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#U...
- padjo 3y ago
  I’m not downplaying, I disagree with characterising it as an armed coup but figured there’s no point in even talking to you about that. So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery? I’m guessing from your tone you thing NATO involvement in Yugoslavia was bad? And you see Russian involvement in Ukraine as equivalent so…
  - ghostwriter 3y ago
    > So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery? The thing that you call "whataboutery" is the basis of the Socratic method that every student who attended Philosophy 101 understands as an essential form of argument-building. Unfortunately to you, the whining of "whataboutery" that you've just demonstrated cannot serve as a rebuttal of anything but your aptitude for argument elaboration.
    - padjo 3y ago
      Nope it’s ad hominem and a propaganda technique used when your argument is flimsy. There’s nothing essential about it, you could discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own but instead you had to try to obfuscate and distract by expanding to Yugoslavia. What Russia is doing right now in Ukraine is disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible.
      - ghostwriter 3y ago