Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jun 14 2024 04:25pm)
We've been over this topic so often, I'm really not in the mood to relitigate all of it. There already was a pro-Western revolution in 2004. Even in the 2010 presidential elections, when large swaths of the Ukrainian people were disappointed by the ineptitude and corruption of the folks who came into power after 2004, there was still a majority for anti-Russian candidates; Yanukovych only came into power on a plurality because Tymoshenko and an ultra-nationalist split the anti-Russian vote. In reality, Ukraine had been balanced on a knife's edge for at least a full decade before the Maidan; at least half the population wanted to either orient the country more toward the West, or to do its own thing (ultra-nationalists). Both Western NGOs and intelligence services as well as their Russian counterparts were propping up their respective side.
Anyway, this notion that the euromaidan was astroturfed or the work of the CIA just doesn't add up. The West didn't nefariously pull out a domino from a stable construct - instead, Ukraine was very already unstable and things had organically reached a breaking point. The West definitely tried to seize the moment as it began to unfold, see McCain and Nuland in Kyiv and so on and forth. So yes, the West positioned itself to capture at least the pro-Western parts of Ukraine. So what? Russia did exactly the same thing. They also made their move immediately and positioned themselves to capture the Russia-aligned parts of the country. Their intelligence service orchestrated pro-Russian protests on Crimea and in the Donbass oblasts - protests which by the way also had a very real, organic core. Then, a few days/weeks later, they sent their unmarked soldiers to annex Crimea and establish the people's republics in Donetsk and Luhansk which broke away from the government in Kyiv.
I really fail to see the argument for Russia having a stronger claim to Ukraine than the West in all of this, or for the West being the aggressor which went to greater lengths in its attempt at exerting influence in Ukraine. Heck, going as far back as 2004, the Russians literally tried to assassinate the pro-Western presidential candidate who was gaining momentum. But the West are the baddies because McCain once gave a speech in Kyiv? Give me a break.
I mean you're right we have this discussion very often and it's the same things really.
The argument is clear as day IMO. They are and have been a regional power for centuries. Part of that is some general understanding they have a sphere of influence in surrounding peripheral states, especially ones that they share ethnic similarities and for many centuries were largely viewed as one and the same group of people. When the winning hegemon after the cold war decides to basically say to the loser, you lost we won, therefore we can take whatever whenever we want and push you out, it leads to this, that's the 'so what'. The west was priming Ukraine for NATO expansion in 2008, again you keep glossing over and want to fast forward many years later and pretend that's when all this shit started when Russia unable to match USD soft power resorted to wars. But we upset through soft-power the long standing balance, and they responded with the only way they could.
E: these regional dynamics are evident all throughout the world. China and Taiwan or Korea, Turkey and Kurdistan, there's others but just a few. You can't simply upset a regional power dynamic that's long established and think the loser is just going to take it on the chin sheepishly. And this dynamic isn't anything new, it's not as if smart people don't know there's consequences to FAFO behavior like this.
This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jun 14 2024 03:53pm