It's dumb propaganda, no one is denying for right groups exist in ukraine.

You either believe that people have a right to self determination or you side with authoritarian regimes like that of russia, north korea, and iran and believe that somehow "nato expansion" was a legitimate threat that justifies the invasion to reclaim a former soviet state.

I assure you I will sleep well at night knowing that people who are incapable of calling out the atrocities commited by putin, and russians both historically and in this war think im a racist who is saying mean things on the internet.

Would you say right for self determination extends to those that do not want to follow a far right authoritarian coup that has removed their elected democratic leader that was doing exactly what he was elected for?

Or does their right of self-determination depend on the colour of their skin and the language they speak? Or purely on which global powers they choose to ally with (they have to always ally with the good guys!).

This post was edited by Malopox on Nov 9 2025 03:37pm

Which groups and subgroups get a right of self-determination and which don't?

The people in the east had representation in a democracy. And they were the majority, so they elected Yanukovych.
It was a coup that disenfranchised them, removing their elected representatives and putting in place an autocracy that claims to rule east Ukraine without giving them any representation, first 'elections' without them voting, then no elections at all.
So the separatist regions voted democratically within the DPR, LPR & Crimea to become independent, and later again voted to join Russia.

What makes it okay for the west to institute their vision for Ukraine by undemocratic coup d'etat, and not okay for the east to hold a referendum to join russia?

It’s OK because CBC said so. Move along, nothing to see here.

Hard to say to what degree those are actuall civilians vs russian soldiers when it comes to the separatists. They have a right to be heard through voting and there was a revolt due to the unpopular decisions of yanukovych including but not limited to giving orders to kill protesters and then fleeing to russia (i did nazi see that coming)

Im generally not on the side of tyrants who order protestors to be killed whether it be in belarus, russia, ukraine or iran, even if some portion of the population says that is their man

They were insurrectionists, trying to overthrow a president who the majority of the population said is 'their man', and failing to stop them would result in both the democracy overthrown (which it was) and loyalists being massacred by the revolutionaries (which they did)
The first duty of any government is to keep peace and order, through force. Because without security, there is no government. The failure of the yanukovych government was in not stopping the revolution.


Its the original sin of this regime that you can't really twist or argue. There's no escaping the simple fact that the east acted democratically and the west acted autocratically. Whatever amount of nazi death squads, towers of people burned to death, journalists assassinated, war crimes on the battlefield, etc etc, it can't be brushed away in the name of a greater good of serving a rules based world order and right to self-determination when its premised on the will of the ukrainian people being thrown out in the name of a violent minority that seized power and claims dominion over the majority that oppose them.

Peace and order, no matter how many men, women and children have to be killed to achieve it?

How far gone are you that you justify police/military atrocities against civilians?

As for the bolded If you genuinely believe this then why is there a war in ukraine at all when in your world view, the vast majority of ukraine is allied with russia?

Men armed with guns shooting at police and trying to seize the center of government are not 'civilians'
Civilians are civilians, protesters are protesters, rioters are rioters, revolutionaries are revolutionaries. They aren't interchangeable terms.
The war in Ukraine was a civil war, preceding the Russian invasion or even the separatists allying with Russia. It was 10 years of bombardment and clashes before russia went hot.
Why was there a civil war in the USA when the majority of americans elected Lincoln?

Admittedly Wikipedia is not the most reliable but this recorded timeline of events contradicts your narrative. Is there even a Kremlin sanctioned alternative interpretation of events that you can share?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Euromaidan

As for the civil war in the states, conservatives were unwilling to give up their states rights to own slaves which were an essential part of their agriculture driven economy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/357355.stm

.

This post was edited by Malopox on Nov 10 2025 05:03am