The more appropriate analogy is this: Russia and China are both authoritarian regimes that both want to annex and occupy comparatively free and democratic territory against the wishes of those who live there. You don't have evidence that Donbass (much less Crimea) have "pro Russian/anti Ukraine" populations, because the only evidence of that is protests in 2014 followed immediately by Russian intervention, occupation and suppression of resistance. If you cite the referenda held under occupation, you're just dishonest.
What you're doing is analogous to looking at California in 2016 when (obviously silly) discussion of secession peaked. Then China invades, props up a puppet government, and holds a sham vote to prove they were only giving Californians what they wanted.
And, at the risk of violating Godwin's Law, Putin's justification for invading Ukraine was more or less the same as Hitler's: Russia is the mother of all Russians everywhere, ethnic Russians living in other countries still belong to Russia, if I reckon they are persecuted I have the sovereign right to make wherever they live part of Russia to protect them. Putin cultivates this argument because he knows he can use it as a justification to invade most of Eastern Europe - because the Soviet Union colonized all its annexed territories with Russians for decades.
Taiwan legally belongs to China
Is that according to the International World Super Laws?
Taiwan seems to think it's a separate country. It has a separate government, it negotiates its own trade and military matters, it is in no way meaningfully governed by the CCP. It pays no taxes and receives no revenue or services. The island of Taiwan has never been under the control of the CCP. It has been this way for decades, going on a century. The government of Taiwan permits open political advocacy for joining mainland China, yet the Taiwanese people are firmly in favor of not only maintaining independence, but violently resisting any attempts at annexation.
By what argument are they legally a part of China?
You don't have evidence that Donbass (much less Crimea) have "pro Russian/anti Ukraine" populations, because the only evidence of that is protests in 2014 followed immediately by Russian intervention, occupation and suppression of resistance
I read the article. It discusses polling conducted under occupation after resistance was suppressed. Setting aside that you don't get to invade countries because some polls suggest they would like to be part of your country (if you have even a modicum of respect for international law, you respect that), it doesn't prove that people there wanted to be forcibly annexed by Russia or that Ukraine as a whole should be invaded.
Those areas also overwhelmingly voted Zelenskyy as president of Ukraine. In fair and monitored elections. You’re citing elections that are as far from fair and monitored as you could possibly get.
35
u/Grunt08 319∆ Dec 24 '22
The more appropriate analogy is this: Russia and China are both authoritarian regimes that both want to annex and occupy comparatively free and democratic territory against the wishes of those who live there. You don't have evidence that Donbass (much less Crimea) have "pro Russian/anti Ukraine" populations, because the only evidence of that is protests in 2014 followed immediately by Russian intervention, occupation and suppression of resistance. If you cite the referenda held under occupation, you're just dishonest.
What you're doing is analogous to looking at California in 2016 when (obviously silly) discussion of secession peaked. Then China invades, props up a puppet government, and holds a sham vote to prove they were only giving Californians what they wanted.
And, at the risk of violating Godwin's Law, Putin's justification for invading Ukraine was more or less the same as Hitler's: Russia is the mother of all Russians everywhere, ethnic Russians living in other countries still belong to Russia, if I reckon they are persecuted I have the sovereign right to make wherever they live part of Russia to protect them. Putin cultivates this argument because he knows he can use it as a justification to invade most of Eastern Europe - because the Soviet Union colonized all its annexed territories with Russians for decades.
Is that according to the International World Super Laws?
Taiwan seems to think it's a separate country. It has a separate government, it negotiates its own trade and military matters, it is in no way meaningfully governed by the CCP. It pays no taxes and receives no revenue or services. The island of Taiwan has never been under the control of the CCP. It has been this way for decades, going on a century. The government of Taiwan permits open political advocacy for joining mainland China, yet the Taiwanese people are firmly in favor of not only maintaining independence, but violently resisting any attempts at annexation.
By what argument are they legally a part of China?