Quote (Goomshill @ Mar 6 2024 01:39pm)
I'd say there's also a pretty good parallel to the legal nonsense that gets thrown around self-defense cases
Like if a mob of armed folks interrupted a police officer arresting someone, wrestled her to the ground and kept her at gunpoint and then shot her in the head, then claimed it was self defense because she was brutalizing the detainee.
There's so many layers of "that's not how it works"
The Ukrainian people had the ultimate recourse for a democracy still available. They were free to vote in the next election against Yanukovych. If the western cause was so popular, why couldn't they simply campaign for it? The people had no right to riot in the streets and stage a siege of the capitol, but the government absolutely had both the right and responsibility to crush the revolution and maintain order. The Maidanistas can claim they were only peacefully protesting with no intention of a coup d'etat until they were brutalized, but besides that being belied by their weaponry and militancy, the proof is in the pudding. They overthrew the government. Once they seized control, they did not move to restore democracy and the lawfully elected regime. They forced the removal of the elected President, and held phony elections with half the country disenfranchised, with no representation in the vast majority of the DPR, LPR & Crimea. The same people who only months earlier had been painting themselves as martyred by a tyrant firing on their crowds of protesters, went and 'fired' on crowds of anti-maidan protesters in Odessa and killed 48 people amid cheers from the pro-maidan mob.
Democracy is an all or nothing affair, if you overthrow a democracy and hold snap elections only in the regions that support you, you're not a democracy anymore. Not with a claim to the regions you disenfranchised, at least. Perhaps there's an argument western Ukraine now has a legitimate representation over the people of western Ukraine, but tell that to Zelensky
I agree with your first part that context is super important. Im not some Kuchma or Zelensky shill and I think this topic requires quite a bit of nuance.
" They were free to vote in the next election against Yanukovych." - This is easy to say, but it's apparent to me (and atleast to media scholars) that the media was already becoming infringed upon and that there was a self censorship based on profit motives and which oligarch you worked for (usually put in power by Yanukovych). It is also apparent that the police were not just functioning as a service to protect citizens, but were actively tied to and militarized by the state, sent out at a whim to kill civilians. It is unquestionable that unarmed civilians exercising their right according to article 11 to freedom of protest were killed by heavily militarized police by an unpopular politician. You can see that as a right of the state or as a way for an authoritarian to hold on to power.
"If the western cause was so popular, why couldn't they simply campaign for it?" - They did. It wasn't like there was only Euromaidan. Parties still existed and campaigned as they had. The protests sprung up out of discontent for chosing Russia over the EU and spiraled.
"The people had no right to riot in the streets and stage a siege of the capitol, but the government absolutely had both the right and responsibility to crush the revolution and maintain order." - The protestors had the right, according to article 11 to protest, they peacefully protested until they were met by force by the Berkut. There were no injuries or reported violence on people or infrastructure until after the Berkut attack on Nov 30. If you think the state has a right to meet peaceful protests with tear gas, sticks and has the right to assault members of the international press (who were wounded and suffer even more protections than civilians) then you disagree with article 11, just like Yanukovych.
"The Maidanistas can claim they were only peacefully protesting with no intention of a coup d'etat until they were brutalized, but besides that being belied by their weaponry and militancy, the proof is in the pudding." - Yes. After being attacked on Nov 30, the following night on Dec 1, protestors armed themselves with wooden sticks and petrol bombs, both of which can be made within 5 minutes. There are 0 injuries from that day that have to do with lethal or specialised weaponry. There were police injured, but there were in fact almost 10 times more injured who were from the media (who again, have even more protection than civilians).
"Once they seized control, they did not move to restore democracy and the lawfully elected regime" - I mean you used OSCE as a measurement, and according to them there was a democratic election in 2014. Do you agree with OSCE or not, or only when it caters to your political opinion? My opinion has always been the same: The sitting government does not decide the limits of democracy and the OSCE are used to make sure elections are transparent, as such OSCE are a useful source of information (both in 2014 and in 2010).
"went and 'fired' on crowds of anti-maidan protesters in Odessa and killed 48 people amid cheers from the pro-maidan mob." - This number is misleading. 4 anti-maidan protestors died in clashes, 2 maidan protestors and 42 died in a fire. Im not here to condone civilian deaths and the fact that people are willing to beat eachother to death over a pro russian authoritarian or Poroshenko, a media magnate is beyond my understanding, but i digress.
"Democracy is an all or nothing affair, if you overthrow a democracy and hold snap elections only in the regions that support you, you're not a democracy anymore." - So just to be clear, you agree with me when i say that its an atrocity that Russia do things like "Sham elections and polls in annexed regions with no observers, laying claim to territories because of alternative history claims where they are wildly unpopular?" , yes?