Lets start with your first sentence "The invasion of the Crimea was in response to anti-Russian sentiment targeting the ethnic Russians who lived there." How were "ethnic Russians in Crimea" targeted in a way that would justify an foreign invasion?
Do you have any examples or evidence of that? you do know that was also Hitlers supposed justification for kicking off WW2
After illegally ousting President Viktor Yanukovych, the provisional government and through the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) issued the following statement on 21 Feb 2014, "[We will] use severe measures to prevent any action taken against diminishing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine." The provisional government was known to be hostile to Russian interests, as the former president was supported by Russia. The ethnic Russians of Crimea in the city of Sevastopol protested the illegal actions of their rise to power. There at the demonstrations, there were chants demanding the release of the territory to the Russian Federation. These protests were dispersed violently, and the Russians retaliated. Putin had been warning the Ukrainian provisional government for months prior to the invasion that they would respond harshly at the first hint of violating the rights of the Crimean Russians. When the Ukrainian Parliament introduced a measure to remove Russian as an official language for government use, the people protested, were suppressed by the local officials, and the Russians invaded as they said they would.
Please note, I did not say that the Russians were justified in their invasion, merely that they had stated reasons for doing so. There is more to the issue than what the news media fed Americans at the time. As for the justification for foreign invasion, consider the fact that for centuries prior to 1991, Crimea had been a part of Russia. As far as the Russian government was concerned even then, it was not "foreign territory" but a piece of land they had to surrender in order to prevent a potentially hostile nuclear next-door neighbor. When the rebels failed to follow due process against Yanukovych, the Russians capitalized on the opportunity. Given that there have been numerous referendums in the province to rejoin Russia, all of which have passed, do they not have the right to self-determination?
And lastly, does your last sentence qualify for Godwin's law, aka reductum ad Hitler? Did we not have a justification to protect the persecuted people of Germany? Does Putin then not have an obligation to his neighbors to the south under threat of persecution from a hostile regime?
These are complicated issues, and simply for pointing them out, you accuse me of being an untrustworthy propagandist instead of a more honest recognition that I have actually researched the issue beyond the American media narrative.
You were the one that justified Hitler starting WW2, if you want to make an outrageous assertion like that, I think the burden of evidence falls on you. As a rule, changing the status quo requires justification of it, not maintaining it
Yes Ukraine had election s, yes there were protests, yes security forces cracked dow, that does not make it, nor was it a crackdown on ethnic Russians.
It was Sovereign Ukrainan territory. Russia wanted it because of their naval base being there.
I don't deny that there were benefits for Russia in acquiring the territory, and I do not believe that these benefits were not ulterior motives. I am merely stating the reasons given by the Russians, which were not necessarily without merit. Crimea stopped being Sovereign Ukrainian territory when the illegitimate government failed to follow its own laws in ousting Yanukovych as far as the Russian government was concerned. Because it was a different government than the one that signed the 1991 Treaty establishing the borders of the Ukraine, Russia was no longer under any obligation to ignore their historical claims on the region.
Lets start with your first sentence "The invasion of the Crimea was in response to anti-Russian sentiment targeting the ethnic Russians who lived there." How were "ethnic Russians in Crimea" targeted in a way that would justify an foreign invasion?
Do you have any examples or evidence of that? you do know that was also Hitlers supposed justification for kicking off WW2
After illegally ousting President Viktor Yanukovych, the provisional government and through the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) issued the following statement on 21 Feb 2014, "[We will] use severe measures to prevent any action taken against diminishing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine." The provisional government was known to be hostile to Russian interests, as the former president was supported by Russia. The ethnic Russians of Crimea in the city of Sevastopol protested the illegal actions of their rise to power. There at the demonstrations, there were chants demanding the release of the territory to the Russian Federation. These protests were dispersed violently, and the Russians retaliated. Putin had been warning the Ukrainian provisional government for months prior to the invasion that they would respond harshly at the first hint of violating the rights of the Crimean Russians. When the Ukrainian Parliament introduced a measure to remove Russian as an official language for government use, the people protested, were suppressed by the local officials, and the Russians invaded as they said they would.
Please note, I did not say that the Russians were justified in their invasion, merely that they had stated reasons for doing so. There is more to the issue than what the news media fed Americans at the time. As for the justification for foreign invasion, consider the fact that for centuries prior to 1991, Crimea had been a part of Russia. As far as the Russian government was concerned even then, it was not "foreign territory" but a piece of land they had to surrender in order to prevent a potentially hostile nuclear next-door neighbor. When the rebels failed to follow due process against Yanukovych, the Russians capitalized on the opportunity. Given that there have been numerous referendums in the province to rejoin Russia, all of which have passed, do they not have the right to self-determination?
And lastly, does your last sentence qualify for Godwin's law, aka reductum ad Hitler? Did we not have a justification to protect the persecuted people of Germany? Does Putin then not have an obligation to his neighbors to the south under threat of persecution from a hostile regime?
These are complicated issues, and simply for pointing them out, you accuse me of being an untrustworthy propagandist instead of a more honest recognition that I have actually researched the issue beyond the American media narrative.
What prosecuted people of Germany was Hitler protecting?
You were the one who brought up Hitler using this justification for World War 2, not me, so you tell me. Justify your assertion.
You were the one that justified Hitler starting WW2, if you want to make an outrageous assertion like that, I think the burden of evidence falls on you. As a rule, changing the status quo requires justification of it, not maintaining it
Yes Ukraine had election s, yes there were protests, yes security forces cracked dow, that does not make it, nor was it a crackdown on ethnic Russians.
It was Sovereign Ukrainan territory. Russia wanted it because of their naval base being there.
I don't deny that there were benefits for Russia in acquiring the territory, and I do not believe that these benefits were not ulterior motives. I am merely stating the reasons given by the Russians, which were not necessarily without merit. Crimea stopped being Sovereign Ukrainian territory when the illegitimate government failed to follow its own laws in ousting Yanukovych as far as the Russian government was concerned. Because it was a different government than the one that signed the 1991 Treaty establishing the borders of the Ukraine, Russia was no longer under any obligation to ignore their historical claims on the region.
You are really bending over backwards to legitimize and Justify Russia's invasion of a sovereign country