US Embassy in Kyiv has been closed indefinitely on a warning of a potential 'massive air attack' today. Which has all kinds of strategic wibbly wobbly implications since Russia would be aware America is aware, or just making shit up. But at rate the US embassy 'thinks' there will be a massive bombardment of Kyiv today

What’s the point for Russia to hammer Kiev if they are slowly winning anyway? Having civilian casualties hardens Ukranian resolve and promotes a new wave of media attention which ensures continued western support?

This post was edited by Malopox on Nov 20 2024 05:00am

To prevent further escalation. US + allies don't understand the language of reason, you have "to show" them in hollywood manner that the threats weren't meant as a joke. Also, before Ukraine really hits a nuclear site or something strategic to the Russian nuclear arsenal, the west should know that nukes will be imminent.
I espect China to come out strong in public and support Russia. That way the allies would know, more escalation = real WW3.

This post was edited by babun1024 on Nov 20 2024 06:22am

Ukrainian support between 74% to 50% (depending on which province they asked) for EU integration in 2012 is not a minority, thanks for acknowledging this

So what’s your point? That the coup was justified?

Does that mean that if most Ukrainians want the war to end today, should they also rise against a government that instead of looking for peace is escalating and wants the war to keep going?

Whether the coup / revolution etc. was justified is something else. Personally I don't believe in violent action, and I think they should have waited for the next elections.

Calling 74% to 50% of Ukrainians "some violent minority" is what I disagree with.

I think what Goomshill is missing is that there were also many Yanukovych voters who wanted EU integration. He promised to continue on the EU path in his presidential campaign. He was himself more pro-Russian in some ways, but publicly he kept selling an imagine of someone who is trying to reconcile both sides. Until he didn't.

This post was edited by Ashirgo on Nov 20 2024 06:59am

Again not sure how you fail to understand this: A democratic republic is an institution in which people elect representatives at regular intervals to make decisions of national policy. The people chose Yanukovych. That was the majority. The majority of Ukrainians pre-2014 lived in the more populous, more industrialized, more resource rich, more ethnic Russian and Russian-leaning eastern oblasts. Yanukovych was himself a former governor of the Donetsk oblast. That is how a democracy works, majority takes control, minority does not.
The democracy of Ukraine was recognized as legitimate and functional by both the east and west, US and Russia, prior to 2014. Some hiccups in prior elections, but none in 2010. It was internationally recognized by all sides as a functioning democracy.

When this was overthrow by a violent revolution and the entire eastern half of the country disenfranchised, democracy simply ended in Ukraine. Even the trappings and pretense of democracy have ended in Ukraine as sham elections have since been suspended.
The moral, 'rules based order' lens would give no legitimacy to a junta brought into power against the will of the people, a coup d'etat that burned alive supporters of the legitimate president.
But this is irrelevant to realpolitik. The revolutionaries now hold western Ukraine, and can claim a state there- and may even restore a democracy there some day.
They do not, however, have any claim to the east. Not by any contrived moral or legal or 'rules based' lens, and certainly not by the simple actual fact Kyiv has never held an inch of the heart of the separatist oblasts since 2014.
The dictatorship ostensibly led by Zelensky but obviously a puppet government for the west, has claimed the full east and never backed down from that claim. The same people they disenfranchised in 2014, the same people who voted democratically to be absorbed into Russia.

The people made their will known in elections and referendums. The majority of Ukrainians supported the Russian-aligned government when the country was whole, that was their vote. The overwhelming near-total majority of eastern Ukrainians supported joining Russia once the revolutionaries claimed the west.
America is investing a lot of blood and treasure in trying to deny the self-determination of some poor bastards in a shithole country

This post was edited by Goomshill on Nov 20 2024 07:10am

Where do I say that I support a violent change of power?

I'm calling you out on gross inaccuracy where you describe a group of up to 74% of Ukrainians as some random violent minority. You can spare yourself the effort of replying.

The vote was 49.55% Yanukovych (Majority) and 46.03% Tymoshenko (minority)
have you comprehended this yet?

Yanukovych voters also were in favour of at least some EU integration. In 2014 the pro-EU sentiment rose to 80% in western Ukraine provinces. Was he democratically elected to represent his voters, or to be a king and spit in their face?