• zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When one state (the aggressor)

      Color Revolution, which resulted in a coup of the sitting government

      which cascaded into a civil war against East Ukrainian seperatists

      that only ended with a Russian invasion in defense of the Donetsk rebels.

      Which was the “one state” that kicked this mess off? Because I can’t find it. I see no less than three separate states actively involved for over a decade.

      So if a state invades another with the intention of occupying a chunk of it, setting up a puppet government, and enacting de-Ukrainisation policies in the east, the people being invaded do not have a right to self-defence?

      Change “de-Ukrainisation” with “de-Ba’athification” and that’s the argument I have been pitched since 2003, yes. Totally legitimate and 100% justifiable, so long as you can claim an existential threat to your motherland.

      You can say what you will about the Russians and their ham-fisted efforts at mitigating the conflict. But when NATO is proposing the extension of short-range missiles into your next door neighbor’s territory, they at least had a better “can’t let that smoking gun become a mushroom cloud” argument than anyone in DC did twenty years ago.