Quote (ofthevoid @ 16 Dec 2024 17:00)
This is the type of stuff that torches western credibility when it comes to rules based order. If the Druze of Golan and adjacent areas are allowed to be annexed because the people living there wish it, why is the Donbass or Crimea different?
It's the reason why we the US have fading global credibility tbh. These type of equivalents make it really apparent that ruled based order is synonymous with western unilateral decision making. In reality, it's about weakening a geopolitical enemy, always has been. Problem is when the Arabs, Africans and South Americans, Indians see these type of double standards, it's hard for them to go along under some pretense of fairness.
With Crimea, the situation was fairly clear and the West only put up some symbolic resistance against Russia annexing it. In the Donbass, the situation was less clear and actual fighting broke out, with Russian soldiers involved.
Also note that there are a few key differences between the two cases. For instance, Syria has been a dictatorship for decades, the country has no democratically legitimized parliament or institutions. Even post-Maidan, Ukraine still had a lawfully elected parliament in which even the MPs from Yanukovych's own party voted in favor of a resolution declaring him to have abdicated. It also had local governments and courts which had legitimization, none of that exists in Syria.
Furthermore, the bulk of the pro-Western movement in Ukraine were fairly normal folks, rather than bloodthirsty maniacs. In Syria, the dominant faction is a literal Al Qaeda offshoot, so there is damn good reason to suspect a fairly high share of violent, intolerant maniacs among them.