I’m putting this behind a spoiler, because it seems like a good faith question but I also expect many people don’t want to see an answer.
click here
From the pro-Russia perspective (though I consider myself neutral), the separatists had the right to secede, the DPR was a legitimate state, and Ukraine sending troops to suppress them was “forcing itself into their sovereign land.” If the DPR was a legitimate state, that would mean that Russia was simply responding to their request for military aid.
So, everything depends on the question of whether the DPR, and whether Ukraine, were/are legitimate states.
From the pro-Ukraine perspective, the separatists were always just Russian proxies, armed men who seized government buildings and held an illegal and rigged vote, while the Ukranian government is a democracy representing what the people really want.
However, the pro-Russia side would counter that the Euromaidan uprising was controlled by American proxies, and involved armed men seizing government buildings and then holding an illegitimate vote to oust the president. Then, they proceeded to ban the opposition parties popular in eastern Ukraine, denying them a chance to voice their positions, or to persue secession through peaceful, legal means.
So, the question of who is legitimate depends on which armed men seizing government buildings you read as foreign proxies vs representing genuine popular will.
The reason why I consider myself neutral is simply that I treat both groups of armed men seizing government buildings with equal skepticism. Perhaps they’re both fully proxies and it’s just a proxy war, or perhaps they both legitimate, and the people in the disputed regions genuinely wanted to secede. But I’m not willing to treat one group of armed men seizing government buildings as legitimate and the other as proxies, without good reason, because I consider that biased.
But there does seem to be at least some genuine support for secession in the east and if that’s the case I fail to see why they shouldn’t be allowed to leave. If there wasn’t, then Ukraine wouldn’t have banned opposition parties. If Ukraine wants them in their country then they shouldn’t have restricted their voice in government.
I learned something new today thank you and yes this was indeed a good faith question. As US citizen, I want to understand my fellow (wo)man even on the other side of the world.
I’m also American, but I appreciate it. Frankly, a lot of it also just comes from being burned out by 20 years of Afghanistan, which made me skeptical of mainstream narratives and interventionism. A lot of what we were told about the wars in the Middle East were lies, and we have the same politicians and same media figures, none of them faced any consequences, so I’m more open to considering other narratives than I might otherwise be.
I’m putting this behind a spoiler, because it seems like a good faith question but I also expect many people don’t want to see an answer.
click here
From the pro-Russia perspective (though I consider myself neutral), the separatists had the right to secede, the DPR was a legitimate state, and Ukraine sending troops to suppress them was “forcing itself into their sovereign land.” If the DPR was a legitimate state, that would mean that Russia was simply responding to their request for military aid.
So, everything depends on the question of whether the DPR, and whether Ukraine, were/are legitimate states.
From the pro-Ukraine perspective, the separatists were always just Russian proxies, armed men who seized government buildings and held an illegal and rigged vote, while the Ukranian government is a democracy representing what the people really want.
However, the pro-Russia side would counter that the Euromaidan uprising was controlled by American proxies, and involved armed men seizing government buildings and then holding an illegitimate vote to oust the president. Then, they proceeded to ban the opposition parties popular in eastern Ukraine, denying them a chance to voice their positions, or to persue secession through peaceful, legal means.
So, the question of who is legitimate depends on which armed men seizing government buildings you read as foreign proxies vs representing genuine popular will.
The reason why I consider myself neutral is simply that I treat both groups of armed men seizing government buildings with equal skepticism. Perhaps they’re both fully proxies and it’s just a proxy war, or perhaps they both legitimate, and the people in the disputed regions genuinely wanted to secede. But I’m not willing to treat one group of armed men seizing government buildings as legitimate and the other as proxies, without good reason, because I consider that biased.
But there does seem to be at least some genuine support for secession in the east and if that’s the case I fail to see why they shouldn’t be allowed to leave. If there wasn’t, then Ukraine wouldn’t have banned opposition parties. If Ukraine wants them in their country then they shouldn’t have restricted their voice in government.
I learned something new today thank you and yes this was indeed a good faith question. As US citizen, I want to understand my fellow (wo)man even on the other side of the world.
I’m also American, but I appreciate it. Frankly, a lot of it also just comes from being burned out by 20 years of Afghanistan, which made me skeptical of mainstream narratives and interventionism. A lot of what we were told about the wars in the Middle East were lies, and we have the same politicians and same media figures, none of them faced any consequences, so I’m more open to considering other narratives than I might otherwise be.