this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2022
17 points (90.5% liked)
World News
36833 readers
451 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't it th Ukraine forces do terrorism attacks on Donetsk last 8 years?
here are a few sources
Versus the Russian little green men that infiltrated Crimea in 2014 and the full fledged invasion that is occurring now? Forgive me if I'm less than upset with the US and NATO for training and equipping Ukraine to defend itself while also avoiding direct confrontation.
Why don't we look at what a US government study has to say about Crimea. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:
🤔
First, they never say that Crimea is not part of Ukraine. The USSR had plenty of republics and Russia retains that trait. It doesn't make them not part of the USSR or Russia except in the loosest sense.
Now, for the survey. First, it's hard to read the tea leaves on it. What do those answers mean? Someone could ask me whether I consider myself a Portlander, an Oregonian or an American. I'm all of those, how do I answer that? Also, Russian is just a plurality there.
Going further through the study, it's notable that at least at that time, Crimeans were largely unconcerned about ethnic issues like Russian language status, interethnic relations, and such. Unfortunately it does not continue past the annexation, so it's largely worthless for gauging current opinion. For that matter, any currently done study would be tainted by fear that the survey takers are secretly trying to find disloyal households.
They literally refer to Crimea as an autonomous republic. What exactly do you think the word autonomous means?
The study is clearly not worthless, and anybody who knows a modicum of history realizes that Crimea was literally part of Russia until the 70s, and it's populated by Russians. The notions that these people would somehow be opposed of being reintegrated into Russia after a nationalistic and vehemently anti Russian coup regime took power is frankly absurd. People continue to parrot this because it's required for the narrative to work.
Maybe should've read your own link there, pretty clearly explains what autonomy means 😂
Yeah, wonder how autonomy would work if Finland was shelling civilian centers there for the past eight years.
Says the guys whose nation is a vassal state of the US 😂
Wow, listening to you one would get the impression that I'm advocating for continuation of this war when I consistently advocate for the opposite. I guess expecting any logic from you would be too much to ask for.
You're the one who wants this war to continue, so why are you still comfortably sitting your ass in Finland while others people are dying in a war you promote. Go sign up and fight Russians in Ukraine. Slava Ukraini and all that.
Ah yes, I want the war to end so that I can go fight in a war. Exactly the level of intelligence I've come to expect from you.
Oh good, you're in for NATO getting Ukraine to negotiate peace with Russia instead of continuing to feed weapons into this conflict.
Autonomous republic. Look it up. It has a specific meaning, and it doesn't mean "not really part of".
I was talking about the opinion section of the study, not the identity part. The opinion section shows little concern for ethnic/culture questions, somewhere in the single digits. It also showed a majority favoring the status quo for Crimea, double the number that wanted to join Russia. What would have happened if Russia had not invaded Crimea and annexed them, as well as encouraging separatists in the Donbass region? We'll never know, because Russia never gave the Ukrainian government a chance. They just swept in with soldiers, held a sham election, and took it.
It kind of does actually. Autonomy means that the region is not fully subject to the laws of the Ukrainian state.
Oh but we do know because we know about the atrocities Ukraine has been committing in Donbas for the past 8 years. We literally have documentaries on the subject https://youtube.com/watch?v=AEOy0eRcJxo
Those only exist within the context of a separatist movement that was encouraged by Russia and the invasion and annexation of Crimea. There's no way to separate out any action by the Ukraine government from that situation that is largely caused by Russia.
There's a difference between just a base and actively operating in the region. Russia said it was sticking to its bases even as it was operating covertly. Well, maybe covertly is giving them too much credit, but they were trying and lying. Then poof! They were operating overly, a mock election was held, and Russia annexed Crimea.
I'll once again link the following slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. First, here's the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
here's how the election in 2004 went:
this is the 2010 election:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
Painting that as "a separatist movement encouraged by Russia" is the height of dishonesty.
Just like NATO covertly planned and executed a color revolution that then poof overthrew the legitimate government in Ukraine.
You forgot to mention what platform Zelensky ran on there conveniently. Turned out to be a bit at odds with what his regime actually ended up doing.
Nice try, except that doesn't break down by region which is the whole point of the graphs I linked. It doesn't even mention if Donetsk was polled there. Given that it's been in a civil war going on, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Republican party think tank didn't go into contested regions to poll people.
Rendering the whole link irrelevant given that the discussion is about Donetsk and Crimea breaking away form Ukraine. Thanks for admitting that you linked an irrelevant source.
The regions that joined Russia are the ones that were not included in your polls, and where the fighting has been going on for the past eight years. The whole point is that the polls are completely irrelevant to the discussion of what people in these regions want.
None of which changes my original point does it.
The polls that are included in the image clearly show that even in places that were polled the opinion was divided. Meanwhile, demographic breakdowns from prior to 2014 clearly show why the regions separated.
And if you actually bother listening to the lecture linked in the comment you can get even more context. That way you'll be able to carry out an informed discussion on the subject in the future.
I'm not twisting anything here. I provided polls showing the public opinion in different regions before 2014. You fixated on the one picture from 2015, which simply provides additional information while conveniently ignoring the bigger context. Then you accuse me of twisting things. Hilarious!
I've repeatedly explained the reason which is that the sources do not discuss the regions in question. Based on our previous discussions, I'm not surprised you're still having trouble understanding that.
Please reread my reply as many times as you need to comprehend what I wrote.
While there are stark differences, all regions show a plurality preferring the EU.
So covert, there's no actual evidence that they planned it at all. Just insinuation and conjecture.
except that they clearly do not
There are mountains of evidence and entire research papers, but do go on.
There is a book about warcrimes of the Ukraine, published in 2020.
https://xn----7sbpbaoaekcpshybgimhugp5z.org/#p=2 . The things you are asking for starting from the page 365. It is in Russian, sorry.
There is a dedicated English-speaking telegram channel I know https://t.me/InfoDefenseEn, which is publishing mostly current events, and it also contains a lot of materials about warcrimes on the Ukraine.
How are there not better sources than that? For all I know the book is Russian propaganda and the Telegram channels are conspiracy theorists who will say anything to convince me. Are there no videos and pictures of the events? 3rd party news sites? Anything cross-referencable?
If I spent effort researching every rabbit hole someone on Lemmy said "trust me bro, you'll understand after you dO yOuR rEaSEaRcH" I would be 80yrs old and hardly any more informed by now
I think I've seen enough "behind the scenes" material from what is evidentially constructed attacks, I don't think the presence of videos or pictures are great indicators if something is truthful.
I think I've seen enough articles challenging whatever current narrative the mainstream holds disappear, I don't think the lack of third party news articles is a great indicator that it never happened.
There are plenty of other sources on that https://lemmy.ml/post/533698/comment/308893