this piece that reveals Washington, via CIA paramilitaries, has been fighting a proxy war against Russia in the Donbas since 2014
Versus the Russian little green men that infiltrated Crimea in 2014 and the full fledged invasion that is occurring now? Forgive me if I’m less than upset with the US and NATO for training and equipping Ukraine to defend itself while also avoiding direct confrontation.
Why don’t we look at what a US government study has to say about Crimea. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:
First, they never say that Crimea is not part of Ukraine. The USSR had plenty of republics and Russia retains that trait. It doesn’t make them not part of the USSR or Russia except in the loosest sense.
Now, for the survey. First, it’s hard to read the tea leaves on it. What do those answers mean? Someone could ask me whether I consider myself a Portlander, an Oregonian or an American. I’m all of those, how do I answer that? Also, Russian is just a plurality there.
Going further through the study, it’s notable that at least at that time, Crimeans were largely unconcerned about ethnic issues like Russian language status, interethnic relations, and such. Unfortunately it does not continue past the annexation, so it’s largely worthless for gauging current opinion. For that matter, any currently done study would be tainted by fear that the survey takers are secretly trying to find disloyal households.
They literally refer to Crimea as an autonomous republic. What exactly do you think the word autonomous means?
The study is clearly not worthless, and anybody who knows a modicum of history realizes that Crimea was literally part of Russia until the 70s, and it’s populated by Russians. The notions that these people would somehow be opposed of being reintegrated into Russia after a nationalistic and vehemently anti Russian coup regime took power is frankly absurd. People continue to parrot this because it’s required for the narrative to work.
Maybe should’ve read your own link there, pretty clearly explains what autonomy means 😂
The autonomous status of Åland was affirmed by a decision made by the League of Nations in 1921 following the Åland Islands dispute. It was reaffirmed within the treaty admitting Finland to the European Union. By law, Åland is politically neutral and entirely demilitarised, and residents are exempt from conscription to the Finnish Defence Forces. Åland was granted extensive autonomy by the Parliament of Finland in the Act on the Autonomy of Åland of 1920, which was later replaced by new legislation by the same name in 1951 and 1991. The constitution of Finland defines a “constitution of Åland” by referring to this act. Åland remains exclusively Swedish-speaking by this act.[15] Although a referendum to join the European Union had been held in mainland Finland on 16 October 1994, Åland held a separate vote on 20 November as they were a separate customs jurisdiction. EU membership was approved by 73.64% of voters.[16] In connection with Finland’s admission to the European Union, a protocol was signed concerning Åland that stipulates, among other things, that provisions of the European Community Treaty shall not force a change of the existing restrictions for foreigners (i.e., persons who do not enjoy “home region rights”—hembygdsrätt—in Åland) to acquire and hold real property or to provide certain services.
They literally refer to Crimea as an autonomous republic. What exactly do you think the word autonomous means?
Autonomous republic. Look it up. It has a specific meaning, and it doesn’t mean “not really part of”.
The notions that these people would somehow be opposed of being reintegrated into Russia after a nationalistic and vehemently anti Russian coup regime took power is frankly absurd.
I was talking about the opinion section of the study, not the identity part. The opinion section shows little concern for ethnic/culture questions, somewhere in the single digits. It also showed a majority favoring the status quo for Crimea, double the number that wanted to join Russia. What would have happened if Russia had not invaded Crimea and annexed them, as well as encouraging separatists in the Donbass region? We’ll never know, because Russia never gave the Ukrainian government a chance. They just swept in with soldiers, held a sham election, and took it.
Autonomous republic. Look it up. It has a specific meaning, and it doesn’t mean “not really part of”.
It kind of does actually. Autonomy means that the region is not fully subject to the laws of the Ukrainian state.
What would have happened if Russia had not invaded Crimea and annexed them, as well as encouraging separatists in the Donbass region? We’ll never know, because Russia never gave the Ukrainian government a chance. They just swept in with soldiers, held a sham election, and took it.
Oh but we do know because we know about the atrocities Ukraine has been committing in Donbas for the past 8 years. We literally have documentaries on the subject https://youtube.com/watch?v=AEOy0eRcJxo
Oh but we do know because we know about the atrocities Ukraine has been committing in Donbas for the past 8 years.
Those only exist within the context of a separatist movement that was encouraged by Russia and the invasion and annexation of Crimea. There’s no way to separate out any action by the Ukraine government from that situation that is largely caused by Russia.
Fun fact, Russia already had a base in Crimea before the coup. They didn’t even have to sweep in there.
There’s a difference between just a base and actively operating in the region. Russia said it was sticking to its bases even as it was operating covertly. Well, maybe covertly is giving them too much credit, but they were trying and lying. Then poof! They were operating overly, a mock election was held, and Russia annexed Crimea.
Those only exist within the context of a separatist movement that was encouraged by Russia and the invasion and annexation of Crimea. There’s no way to separate out any action by the Ukraine government from that situation that is largely caused by Russia.
I’ll once again link the following slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. First, here’s the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
here’s how the election in 2004 went:
this is the 2010 election:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
Painting that as “a separatist movement encouraged by Russia” is the height of dishonesty.
There’s a difference between just a base and actively operating in the region. Russia said it was sticking to its bases even as it was operating covertly. Well, maybe covertly is giving them too much credit, but they were trying and lying. Then poof! They were operating overly, a mock election was held, and Russia annexed Crimea.
Just like NATO covertly planned and executed a color revolution that then poof overthrew the legitimate government in Ukraine.
here are a few sources
Versus the Russian little green men that infiltrated Crimea in 2014 and the full fledged invasion that is occurring now? Forgive me if I’m less than upset with the US and NATO for training and equipping Ukraine to defend itself while also avoiding direct confrontation.
Why don’t we look at what a US government study has to say about Crimea. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:
🤔
First, they never say that Crimea is not part of Ukraine. The USSR had plenty of republics and Russia retains that trait. It doesn’t make them not part of the USSR or Russia except in the loosest sense.
Now, for the survey. First, it’s hard to read the tea leaves on it. What do those answers mean? Someone could ask me whether I consider myself a Portlander, an Oregonian or an American. I’m all of those, how do I answer that? Also, Russian is just a plurality there.
Going further through the study, it’s notable that at least at that time, Crimeans were largely unconcerned about ethnic issues like Russian language status, interethnic relations, and such. Unfortunately it does not continue past the annexation, so it’s largely worthless for gauging current opinion. For that matter, any currently done study would be tainted by fear that the survey takers are secretly trying to find disloyal households.
They literally refer to Crimea as an autonomous republic. What exactly do you think the word autonomous means?
The study is clearly not worthless, and anybody who knows a modicum of history realizes that Crimea was literally part of Russia until the 70s, and it’s populated by Russians. The notions that these people would somehow be opposed of being reintegrated into Russia after a nationalistic and vehemently anti Russian coup regime took power is frankly absurd. People continue to parrot this because it’s required for the narrative to work.
deleted by creator
Maybe should’ve read your own link there, pretty clearly explains what autonomy means 😂
deleted by creator
Yeah, wonder how autonomy would work if Finland was shelling civilian centers there for the past eight years.
Autonomous republic. Look it up. It has a specific meaning, and it doesn’t mean “not really part of”.
I was talking about the opinion section of the study, not the identity part. The opinion section shows little concern for ethnic/culture questions, somewhere in the single digits. It also showed a majority favoring the status quo for Crimea, double the number that wanted to join Russia. What would have happened if Russia had not invaded Crimea and annexed them, as well as encouraging separatists in the Donbass region? We’ll never know, because Russia never gave the Ukrainian government a chance. They just swept in with soldiers, held a sham election, and took it.
It kind of does actually. Autonomy means that the region is not fully subject to the laws of the Ukrainian state.
Oh but we do know because we know about the atrocities Ukraine has been committing in Donbas for the past 8 years. We literally have documentaries on the subject https://youtube.com/watch?v=AEOy0eRcJxo
Those only exist within the context of a separatist movement that was encouraged by Russia and the invasion and annexation of Crimea. There’s no way to separate out any action by the Ukraine government from that situation that is largely caused by Russia.
There’s a difference between just a base and actively operating in the region. Russia said it was sticking to its bases even as it was operating covertly. Well, maybe covertly is giving them too much credit, but they were trying and lying. Then poof! They were operating overly, a mock election was held, and Russia annexed Crimea.
I’ll once again link the following slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. First, here’s the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
here’s how the election in 2004 went:
this is the 2010 election:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
Painting that as “a separatist movement encouraged by Russia” is the height of dishonesty.
Just like NATO covertly planned and executed a color revolution that then poof overthrew the legitimate government in Ukraine.