[hdjjhhvvhga]

Yes, Putin loves to use the example of Yugoslavia because on the surface it's similar and it also resonates well with the Serbs. However, there are several important differences:

* NATO wasn't bombing Serbia to take over their land as Russia is doing

* Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war, no Ukrainian was killing any Russians. However, Serbs were actively killing others and the war was in full swing when NATO finally decided to intervene.

* And of course NATO didn't do any of the atrocities Russians are doing now like massacre in Bucha etc.

[yucky]

  > Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the timing of Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. What precipitated that, what exactly was going on in the Ukraine at the time? Or was it just a random decision one day to invade?

Also, is it true that Crimeans didn't fight back and in fact voted to be annexed into Russia afterwards? On the surface that seems like a strange way to handle a foreign invasion, curious as to your thoughts on this.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

Actually this is very clear to me as I was there a few times and talked to my friends on both "sides" - that is, from both Eastern and Western Ukraine. They had very different views.

The people from Donbas were very poor. Actually Ukrainiansin general were poor but e.g. in Donyetsk there were whole districts where people stopped paying for electricity etc. They had the idea it would be better to live under the Russian rule. Same in Crimea: there were mostly Russians or people speaking Russian everywhere. They thought that if Crimea was Russian they would be better off as more rich Russians would come there.

Western Ukraine was very different. I asked someone on the street in Russian and he kindly answered this is not Russia, they have another language etc. I was surprised as I didn't mean to start a debate, I just wanted to know my way to the train station.

Back to your question. It's very clear why the war started and Putin explained it in very simple terms in the victory piece that was published by RIA and quickly retracted[0]. In short, he felt like Peter the Great and wanted to take over the whole Ukraine to be remembered in history books as someone who gathered both Belorussians and Ukrainians under single Moscovian rule.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240

[yucky]

You didn't actually answer the question, which is a sign of bad faith in the discussion. So I will restate them, and number them for ease of reference:

1 - Isn't it true that the democratically elected government in Ukraine had just been overthrown (call it a coup or a revolution, doesn't matter) leading to Russia annexing Crimea? I mean, the annexation happened the very next day after the government had been overthrown so you don't see that as unrelated do you?

2 - Do you support the vote that Crimeans then had on their desire to be annexed by Russia following their democratically elected government being overthrown?

[hdjjhhvvhga]

1. Yes, Putin saw that Ukrainians don't want to integrate with Russia and that Ukraine is escaping the Moscovian sphere of influence so he decided to invade Ukraine, taking over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

2. Yes, my personal opinion is that Crimea could at least have a special status as most people living there are Russians. But it should have been done in a completely different way, in the spirit of support and collaboration. But Putin doesn't understand this language, he only understands conquest and power. He doesn't care at all about people. Now people living in Crimea are in constant fear and many of those who could moved elsewhere.

[yucky]

  > 1. Yes, Putin saw that Ukrainians don't want to integrate with Russia and that Ukraine is escaping the Moscovian sphere of influence so he decided to invade Ukraine, taking over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

Ukrainians voted that government into power though. Doesn't violently overthrowing the government go against the whole idea of democracy? Not to mention being illegal. But you're cool with that because of the result?

  > 2. Yes, my personal opinion is that Crimea could at least have a special status as most people living there are Russians. But it should have been done in a completely different way

And then here where they actually did vote democratically, you don't support it because you wish it had been done a different way?

To sum up, you support violently overthrowing the democratically government in Ukraine, but don't support a democratic referendum in Crimea. Well, that's certainly a position to take.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

> Ukrainians voted that government into power though. Doesn't violently overthrowing the government go against the whole idea of democracy? Not to mention being illegal. But you're cool with that because of the result?

I know Putin argues this way. He tried to use the "democracy" argument even though he is an autocrat and some people buy it. Euromaidan happened for just one reason: Putin pressured Yanukovych not to sign the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement and he gave in. Ukrainians didn't want to share the fate of Belorussians though. So Putin decided to invade as it was a slap in his face.

> And then here where they actually did vote democratically, you don't support it because you wish it had been done a different way?

No, any vote under the Moscovian rule is not democratic. Actually I don't care that much about Crimea as very few people died but I do care a lot about Donbas as people were suffering enormously. Of course the Russian media portrayed it as if everything was done by Ukrainians. My friends who lived there at the time said the thugs that ruled there didn't value human life at all, something that the whole world was to see a few years later. It was a tragedy that the West didn't react in 2014 and went for the appeasement strategy instead.