Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 25 2024 05:33pm)
When Putin's man in Kyiv, Viktor Yanukovich, was losing to the leader of the pro-Western opposition, Viktor Yushchenko, he literally had Yushchenko poisoned. And the pro-Russian side tried to steal the election via fraud, leading to the supreme court of the country ordering a revote which Yushchenko won, sparking the so-called Orange Revolution. Yanukovych then won the next election in 2010 because the other side had proven to be corrupt and inept. As soon as the pro-Western forces in the country wanted to formally align with the West (by signing the association agreement with the EU), Moscow interfered yet again and had their man Yanukovych veto it at the 11th hour, in direct contradiction of a promise he had made on the campaign trail for the 2010 election. When the ensuring outrage got out of control, Russian troops swiftly annexed Crimea and invaded the Donbass.
Long story short, Russia only seems to have given Ukraine a long leash as long as Ukraine didn't dare to exert its sovereignty and challenge its de facto vassal status.
There are a few important distinctions to make here. While the 2004 elections were marked by fraud and overturned, both the east and west accepted the results of the 2010 election as legitimate even if it was contested. If the EU and Russian observers both said it wasn't rigged, thats the best a nascent democracy on the knifes edge could hope for.
And of course Russia was exerting pressure on Yanukovych to abort the EU association deal. But thats well within the norms of international relations and not even close to the kinds of manipulation we do. What did the US do when Imran Khan said he wouldn't support the Ukraine war and would only look out for Pakistani interests? We had their government overthrown, ousted Khan and imprisoned him. Ironically on charges of leaking the transcripts showing the US ordering his removal. What did Russia do to Yanukovych? He was already aligned with Russian interests, the governor of the largest ethnic russian and now separatist oblast. He had every reason to oppose the EU deal no matter what pandering he did in the campaign. Like I said back in 2014, it was simple calculus for any Ukrainian nationalist: Russia was willing to act to defend its interests in Ukraine, the US/EU were not. And look how true that rang.
Its not like a politician reneging on a campaign promise is grounds to overthrow a government or we'd have put Bush Sr in a gibbet for saying 'read my lips'. Ukrainians had a democratic method to oppose Yanukovych's agenda at the next election. Instead you glossed over what happened before Russia annexed Crimea and sent in its little green men: A coup d'etat led by the Right Sector nazis, with the CIA micromanaging the new regime. Any pressure by Russia to oppose NATO encroachment up to that point was clearly a lighter touch than a color revolution.
Quote
See above, they already did try to twist Ukraine back in 2004 when there was organic momentum on the pro-Western side. And let's not forget that a big chunk of the pro-Western sentiment and momentum in 2013 and 2014 was organic, too. Furthermore, during the 90s and early 2000s, Russia didn't refrain from pulling and twisting Ukraine out of the goodness of their hearts, they stood back because their own country was in shambles and lacked the power to assert itself. Since the mid-2000s (when a commodity price boom boosted their economy), Russia was acting in aggressive and imperialist fashion against its neighbors again, see also the Russo-Georgian War of 2008.
The occupy wall street movement was mostly organic. The tea party was mostly organic. The guy who just immolated himself outside the Israeli embassy wasnt being paid to do it by shadowy Hamas propagandists. Look at any map of the Ukrainian elections- a clear partisan divide existed. But those sentiments were in a
minority. For Ukraine to be a democracy, the will of the majority is what ruled, and the majority sided with Russia. Yanukovych was representing them, and the US backed coup disenfranchised millions of people in the name of 'democracy'
Ive said before, maybe in some alternate timeline the organic pro western movement would reach critical mass and Russia would be forced to suppress it to maintain their sphere of influence. But that didn't happen. We helped overthrow a democracy
Quote
In any case, the claim that the Kyiv-controlled parts of Ukraine are categorically poorer than the Moscow-controlled parts is definitely untrue.
Their income was demonstrably less prior to the invasion, something like 20% less on average. The location of resources is all it really takes to see Russias interests in the Donbas at any rate
Quote
You could also phrase it as "Europe got a significant injection of fresh bodies against the backdrop of its crumbling demographic basis". It's mostly Germany where Ukrainian refugees have subpar rates of workforce participation, in the other European countries (like the Netherlands or Poland), they're actually working and contributing just fine. Still a net drain at this point in time, don't get me wrong, but if these people stay, it can be assumed that they will eventually hold their weight, just like the other Eastern European migrants to Western Europe did. Germany handing benefits and entitlements out like candy is a big problem in recent years, but not limited to Ukrainians at all.
In terms of education, socialization and so on and forth, Ukrainians cannot be compared to the types of migrant that Western Europe has been absorbing from the Middle East and Africa over the past decade. A Ukrainian lawyer will find a way to contribute in a Western economy, a goat herder from Eritrea never will. Likewise, even if the Ukrainian lawyer has to work lowly jobs in the West, the generation of her children will be reasonably integrated. Can't say the same about the offspring of Muslim and/or African migrants.
/e ill finish replying later