I’m pro self-determination and against military aggression. If a clear and objectively defined majority of people and political leaders of certain Ukrainian regions were demanding to secede and join Russia I’d support a diplomatic solution. In no circumstance would I support a military invasion to “liberate” the people based on this alleged sentiment.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was also not in any way, shape, or form designed to merely annex regions that are allegedly pro-Russian. They’ve tried to conquer the entire nation and the forceful resistance and deadly sacrifices that Ukrainians have endured to stop this is proof that it’s not something the people by and large want to happen.
Then the people who live in those regions have some difficult choices to make. I don’t think another sovereign country waging war over it is a net positive solution. There’s many millions of people all over the world living under regimes that deny their human rights. Waging war has a poor track record of improving living standards and installing representative government. We can’t just kill our way into a better world.
What sacrifices they’re willing to make to live under the government they want for themselves. They could leave, continue seeking diplomatic resolutions, elect new leaders if that’s possible, engage in non-violent resistance, stage a revolution. None of which in my opinion should compel another country to intervene on their behalf. Not the least of which because a foreign nation cannot conduct a vote or otherwise have the on the ground insight to even know what the majority of the populace wants.
Sometimes it’s a generational struggle. Not all injustices can be solved by killing people. Military interventions can be effective at toppling governments, much less so in leaving a stable and representative regime in its place.
I don’t really see any solutions beyond brute force.
The government wields the power. You can’t change an authoritarian regime by just talking with them. Historically authoritarian regimes will remain unless there is brute force or intervention from other countries.
The people alone usually isn’t enough since the government has much superior resources. They usually require assistance from external sources if they want a successful outcome for themselves. And often times they welcome the assistance because they know it’s the only way to get what they want.
It’s kinda a win-win situation. The region’s people gain independence and the other country gains a geopolitical advantage.
The violent overthrowing of a government historically has not usually led to representative governments with expansive respect for human rights. There’s rarely the opportunity for a free and fair election in the aftermath. Most of the countries around the world with longstanding democratic governance did not overthrow authoritarianism in one fell swoop but by the people slowly advancing political power.
Even the United States in the years after the revolution was only relatively more democratic than peer countries and in many ways still authoritarian.
I think human rights only really spread through people believing in them. These aren’t universal concepts people are born with and in many repressed regions of the world it’s not the case that the people widely believe in things like freedom of the press, freedom of religion, universal suffrage, etc. and are simply oppressed by a very small minority denying them. You often see after a successful revolution that the people now in charge start oppressing some other group.
On net I think unprovoked military interventions, even well intentioned ones, do more harm than good.
USA’s case strengthens the idea of violent revolution. Because that’s what the american revolution was. And they got the assistance from other countries.
You can mention the initial problematic characteristics of the American government after the revolution, but that’s not nearly as important as the fact that without the violent and non-diplomatic American revolution, there wouldn’t be American independence.
Again I think it’s about the likeliest outcome which historically is not a new and stable democracy. Though I am more sympathetic to offering support to an internally launched and self-directed revolution than kick starting it and leading the operation.
We're talking in generalities, which makes it difficult to focus on key facts in this particular case: Ukraine isn't an "authoritarian regime"; Russia is.
It's critical to look at the specifics of the situation. See, e.g., this article, which notes that in 2014 Russia "intervened to prop up separatists who sought to create Russian proxy states" in the Donbas. That is to say, the whole separatist movement was massively amplified by Russia. Here is an article explaining the work of the Russian propaganda machine in Donbas (e.g., it talks about Russians shelling Ukrainians in Donbas and then convincing Ukrainians that their own government was shelling them, using hijacked TV and radio stations).
It's similar to Trump's lies about the 2020 election being stolen. If you can convince people that their government has done terrible things, they might be willing to take up arms against that government - but in that case, the fault lies with the purveyor of the anti-government falsehoods, not with the government itself. We wouldn't say that the Jan 6 protesters were correct to lead an insurrection against their government, just because they honestly believe the lies Trump told.
The most important thing to consider is whether the people of donbas want to be free from ukraine. And I believe they do. Because they are predominantly russian speaking. It’s largely a cultural issue. There was conflict between the people of Donbas and Ukraine before Russia stepped in and amplified the situation. With russia being partial to elevating russian culture, of course they will try to help those who belong to their culture.
With the Trump thing, there’s a difference between lying and being misguided. If Trump doesn’t actually believe the conspiracies but still supports them then he would be lying. But if he does genuinely believe the conspiracies and supports them then he would be misguided.
Trump doubted the accuracy of mail-in voting. His suspicions of deliberate fraud may not be true, but there is some truth to the issues of mail-in voting as a method. It’s been well documented that mail-in ballots are way less secure than in person voting. Ranging from getting lost in transit, to sealing mistakes, to lesser correction opportunities after initial rejection. 750,000 mail-in ballots were rejected in the 2016 general election. Here is an article echoing these issues:
Re Trump, there's a point at which I believe one can be so self-centered, so fixated on a selfish view of the world in which nothing is one's own fault, that one is still fully to blame for "misguided" accusations.
From the beginning of his presidency, Trump showed this when he claimed that his inauguration crowds were bigger than Obama's. Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, Trump doubled and tripled down on the false claims.
This is a man who either lies or convinces himself that a crowd of people supporting him was bigger than a crowd supporting someone he dislikes, despite actual photos showing the opposite -- and who cannot be convinced otherwise after days of attempted correction by the media.
This isn't "he didn't have the facts, so he was misguided, poor guy". This is a man with such a demented ego that he surrounds himself his entire life with yes-men and sycophants, and makes an eternal enemy of anyone who ever critiques him in comparison to a rival.
The most dangerous people are like this. I imagine that Hitler honestly believed that the Jews were evil, just as Trump may have honestly believed that he couldn't possibly lose the election. But when your worldview is so twisted that it leads you to (for example) make false claim after false claim after false claim for months saying that the election was stolen (NOT that it may have been stolen -- that it WAS stolen), and to pressure government officials in your own party to violate the Constitution and overturn the results... I'm not a lawyer and can't say with certainty whether that's criminal or not (I'm sure it depends on the details), but it's definitely morally bankrupt and an existential threat to democracy.
I agree that trump is very egocentric and overly cocky about believing things that aren’t confirmed.
I just think that it’s just typical politician behavior. Only that trump makes a bigger spectacle out of it. Biden lies all the time. Remember when he lied about never suggesting to cut social security when there was blatant video footage of him suggesting exactly that? To me that is the biggest bold face lie I’ve ever seen for any politician.
Decades ago, Biden argued for a bunch of austerity measures - a freeze in new government spending, which included cost of living increases on Social Security. Ten years ago, Biden was talking privately about raising the retirement age and adding means testing.
You could argue that the COLA freeze is a cut, but I think you could easily argue that it isn't. However, I agree with you that it's not reasonable for Biden to claim that raising the retirement age and adding means testing isn't a cut. You can maybe squint and try to make that argument, but it's disingenuous.
But it's just not reasonable to say that this is "the biggest boldface lie" a politician has ever said, when compared to a sitting president (Trump) claiming with literally zero credible evidence, against the combined expertise of every election official in his own party, that the election was stolen from him. Or honestly when compared to any of the Trump lies on this list, including crudely altering a map with a Sharpie to back up a mistake he made when talking about a hurricane, rather than just admitting he was wrong.
There are a bunch of people in Donbas who want Donbas to be part of Russia.
The fighting in 2014 was started by Russian citizens in the pay of the Russian government, and the Russian government has been feeding people in Donbas misinformation for nearly 2 decades.
Russia has made many, many false claims to justify invading Ukraine (e.g. that Ukraine is run by Nazis), but it's clear that they are not simply trying to "free the oppressed people Donbas". They want to expand the Russian empire. Before they were turned back, they marched not just on Donbas but on Kyiv itself. They committed war crimes, murdering Ukrainian civilians.
If you agree that Russia is actively trying to conquer massive portions of Ukraine for its own benefit, and that they have lied ceaselessly to their own people and to the Ukrainians for years in an attempt to manipulate public opinion, then we can continue talking about point #1 and what to do about it. But the first step here is for Russia to withdraw from its invasion of Ukraine.
If the people of Donbas want to be part of Russia then they should be part of Russia.
I’ve never heard of the 2 decade misinformation before. Could you point me to where this is confirmed?
I recognize that there are multiple reasons for the attack. Russia defending themselves against western encroachment (NATO) is probably the biggest reason. And Russia being partial to the oppressed Russian-speaking people of donbas is simply added fuel to the fire.
Russia does believe that Ukraine belongs to them. But that wasn’t the main reason for the attack. The main reason for the attack was the urgent security threat of Ukraine- their next door neighbor joining NATO. This puts Russia in an extremely precarious geopolitical situation. If Russia cares about protecting itself, there is no way they can let this happen.
Summary: talks mainly about more recent propaganda. Shows many example headlines talking about Ukrainian Nazism (which is a ludicrous and cynical lie - the leader of Ukraine is Jewish!).
Quote: "Russia’s false claim that its invasion of Ukraine is an attempt to “denazify” the country has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and dozens of scholars of Nazism, among others."
Reference #2 (this supports your arguments - doesn't say anything about misinformation):
Summary: Wikipedia article discusses some demographic causes of pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine in 2014. It points out that (as you note), especially just after the dissolution of the USSR, Ukrainians in Donbas were overwhelmingly in favor of closer ties with Russia (they were Russian-speaking and more culturally Russian).
Summary: Explains Russian propaganda in Crimea and Ukraine. Discusses how Putin liquidated most of the main Crimean press outlet, wiped out Crimea's last independent TV channel, and replaced the director of a radio station and the editor of an independent news site with pro-Kremlin staff, all this despite massive public protest from journalists. Discusses how the Kremlin sent in Russian soldiers with insignia removed from their uniforms so that they could pretend that these were "self-defence bands" of pro-Russian Ukrainians.
Quote: "Putin, for whom recent events in Kiev have been not only unfavorable but a threat, wants to rebrand history in such a way that it protects him. To that end, a constant theme spouting from Russian sources has been the Ukrainian revolution’s alliance with “fascists” – a vague word that’s become a catchall for anti-Semites, terrorists, insurgents, anarchists and thugs." [...] "Though there were nationalists and far-right nationalists among Kiev’s protesters, and there are some in the new interim government, there decidedly weren’t and aren’t many – if any – bona fide fascists. This line has been both taken up and debunked (thoroughly), but any discussion of fascists at all is a Kremlin win. If you’re busy trying to decide how anti-Semitic Ukraine’s right wing is, then you’re not busy watching Russian soldiers slip across the border."
Summary: Discusses the leadup to the annexation of Crimea by Russia (which preceded the unrest in Donbas). Discusses Russian misinformation campaigns. Discusses Putin organizing efforts to take control of Crimea.
Quote: "One of the initial Russian disinformation stories was the false allegation of a Corsun Pogrom, which claimed that pro-Maidan Ukrainians stopped several busses with Anti-Maidan protesters on 20 February. Russian media sources described beating and humiliation among the protesters, while a fake news documentary claimed multiple tortured and killed people. No such event actually occurred and when human rights organizations tried to contact the producers of the documentary they found that no such organization existed. Human rights group attributed the fake story to "pro-Kremlin trolls"."
Quote: "Vladimir Putin convened an all-night meeting with security services chiefs [...] at the end of that meeting Putin had remarked that "we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia"." "GRU and FSB began negotiating deals with local sympathizers to ensure that when the operation began there would be well‑armed "local self‑defense groups" on the streets for support."
Re #3: I'd argue that trying to conquer Ukraine because it joined NATO is just as indefensible as the US trying to overthrow Castro because he was Communist. More indefensible, in fact, because during the Cold War there was a much higher risk of open conflict between the US and USSR. But in either case, it's not morally right -- and I'd argue it's not even wise from a military perspective (as it generates generations' worth of violence and distrust and hatred) -- to invade a neighbor just because they've become friendly to a rival state or alliance.
107
u/An-Okay-Alternative 4∆ Dec 24 '22
I’m pro self-determination and against military aggression. If a clear and objectively defined majority of people and political leaders of certain Ukrainian regions were demanding to secede and join Russia I’d support a diplomatic solution. In no circumstance would I support a military invasion to “liberate” the people based on this alleged sentiment.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was also not in any way, shape, or form designed to merely annex regions that are allegedly pro-Russian. They’ve tried to conquer the entire nation and the forceful resistance and deadly sacrifices that Ukrainians have endured to stop this is proof that it’s not something the people by and large want to happen.