Not to be too "whataboutism" BUT:
"International recognition of Kosovo, since its declaration of independence from Serbia enacted on 17 February 2008, has been mixed, and the international community is divided on the issue.[1][2]
As of 4 September 2020, 97 out of 193 (50.26% ) United Nations member states, 22 out of 27 (81.48% ) European Union member states, 26 out of 30 (86.67% ) NATO member states, and 31 out of 57 (54.39% ) Organisation of Islamic Cooperation member states have recognised Kosovo. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo
This was, of course, after the 1999 bombing campaign against Serbia to supposedly stop the "genocide" in Kosovo though at the time the bombers disclaimed any intention of forcing Kosovo independence.
So are present international borders "inviolable" or do the Russians just need as good an excuse as NATO to force the dismemberment of a sovereign nation?
@no1marauder saidYanukovych was overthrown after using violent measures to quell protests, throwing the country into chaos, much like Lukashenko in Belarus. That's on top of accusations of abusing power to enrich himself.
Did Russia annex the Crimea before the Ukrainians violently overthrew their elected President because he was supposedly too "pro-Russian"?
The tale you are telling is simplistic.
If you're going to accuse me of "simplistic tales", don't use them yourself.
@vivify saidEven if excessive force was used to quell the protests, there were legal, Constitutional measures to remove Yanukovych, including an early Presidential election he had agreed to with opposition leaders on February 21, 2014.
Yanukovych was overthrown after using violent measures to quell protests, throwing the country into chaos, much like Lukashenko in Belarus. That's on top of accusations of abusing power to enrich himself.
If you're going to accuse me of "simplistic tales", don't use them yourself.
None of these procedures were followed.
@no1marauder saidAgreed. But he wasn't thrown out merely because he was pro-Russia.
Even if excessive force was used to quell the protests, there were legal, Constitutional measures to remove Yanukovych, including an early Presidential election he had agreed to with opposition leaders on February 21, 2014.
None of these procedures were followed.
@vivify saidWell: ": After a year of insisting he would sign a landmark political and trade deal with the European Union, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych suspends talks in the face of opposition from Russia, which has long opposed Ukraine forming closer ties with the EU. Tens of thousands of protesters hit the streets in the following days, highlighting the deep divide between the pro-European west and Yanukovych's power base in the pro-Russian east of Ukraine."
Agreed. But he wasn't thrown out merely because he was pro-Russia.
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/10/europe/ukraine-war-how-we-got-here/index.html
And:
"He reminded that one of the main demands of the Maidan from the beginning was and remains the resignation of President Viktor Yanukovych." https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/02/21/7015573/
This references before the protests and the bloodshed in February (13 policemen were among the 82 killed). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#cite_note-214
@no1marauder
The invasion has begun. Inching their way in so as to not trigger massive economic repsonses.
@sonhouse saidThe “peacekeeping mission” has begun…
@no1marauder
The invasion has begun. Inching their way in so as to not trigger massive economic repsonses.
@no1marauder saidThat made him unpopular but that's not why he was forced out.
Well: ": After a year of insisting he would sign a landmark political and trade deal with the European Union, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych suspends talks in the face of opposition from Russia, which has long opposed Ukraine forming closer ties with the EU. Tens of thousands of protesters hit the streets in the following days,
He faced charges of corruption: jailing political opponents, abusing his power to make his family rich, all in addition to using violence and murder to put down protests (for which he was later convicted of treason).
He would've most definitely lost his next election but I think it's quite unlikely that just his legal acts as president, despite their unpopularity, would've caused him to be forcibly removed.
@vivify saidI think that's mostly BS; virtually all such charges post-dated his removal. The three main opposition leaders were perfectly willing to accept his continued Presidency until an election in the February 21st agreement; an odd thing to agree to if he was really so obviously guilty of such crimes.
That made him unpopular but that's not why he was forced out.
He faced charges of corruption: jailing political opponents, abusing his power to make his family rich, all in addition to using violence and murder to put down protests (for which he was later convicted of treason).
He would've most definitely lost his next election but I think it's quite unlikely that [i ...[text shortened]... his legal acts as president, despite their unpopularity, would've caused him to be forcibly removed.
The protests and demands for his removal started days after he announced he would not be signing the agreement with the West. You might think that coincidental, but I find that idea far-fetched.
@sonhouse saidbiden gave permission for this…have you forgot the “minor incursion” comment
@no1marauder
The invasion has begun. Inching their way in so as to not trigger massive economic repsonses.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-01-20/bidens-minor-incursion-comment-roils-diplomatic-efforts-to-halt-russian-invasion-of-ukraine
@no1marauder saidYanukovych was accused of politically-motivated imprisonment of his political rivals years before the protests. One his political rivals were freed the same day he was removed. Money laundering charges came afterward, but were known about during his presidency.
I think that's mostly BS; virtually all such charges post-dated his removal.
The protests and demands for his removal started days after he announced he would not be signing the agreement with the West. You might think that coincidental, but I find that idea far-fetched.
Protests for the removal of a president are not uncommon. We even had them here in the U.S. What is uncommon is using extreme violence to quell those protests. If the protests had been allowed to peacefully continue, Yanukovych most likely would've just been removed through the next election.
@sonhouse saidThere was no invasion. Russia was welcomed with cheers.
@no1marauder
The invasion has begun. Inching their way in so as to not trigger massive economic repsonses.
The sanctions are very limited so far. The US government knows not to push it. They don't want to lose Ukraine after going through so much trouble getting their coup and supporting their neo Nazis puppets in the Ukraine government.
2 edits
@vivify saidWell, thanks for your wild guesses, but, in fact, he was only removed (illegally) because fascists and neo-nazis in armed occupation of Ukrainian government buildings refused to abide by the agreement signed by the major opposition groups (with EU backing) on February 21, 2014.
Yanukovych was accused of politically-motivated imprisonment of his political rivals years before the protests. One his political rivals were freed the same day he was removed. Money laundering charges came afterward, but were known about during his presidency.
[b]The protests and demands for his removal started days after he announced he would not be signing the agreem ...[text shortened]... o peacefully continue, Yanukovych most likely would've just been removed through the next election.
There is also the fact that Western governments quickly fell all over themselves to support his removal even though they knew it was in clear violation of Ukraine's Constitution.
@no1marauder saidFirst you claim he was removed because of protests, now you claim he was "only" removed because of armed Nazis.
Well, thanks for your wild guesses, but, in fact, he was only removed (illegally) because fascists and neo-nazis in armed occupation of Ukrainian government buildings refused to abide by the agreement signed by the major opposition groups (with EU backing) on February 21, 2014.
There is also the fact that Western governments quickly fell all over themselves to support his removal even though they knew it was in clear violation of Ukraine's Constitution.
Thanks for your wild guesses.
@vivify saidNo, I said he was violently overthrown because he was pro-Russian.
First you claim he was removed because of protests, now you claim he was "only" removed because of armed Nazis.
Thanks for your wild guesses.
Nor did I say "Nazis". But you should familiarize yourself with the group Right Sector and their role in the 2014 coup.