[ghostwriter]

The question is lacking historical context of the declaration of state sovereignty of Ukraine from 1990 to be worthy of specificity you’re willing to hear. Welcome to the real world of messy politics that cost human lives, unless guided by level-headed leaders (that the modern Ukraine has been lacking since early 2000s)

[padjo]

Ah it’s Ukrainian leaders fault that they were invaded and had their territory annexed? It’s not barbarism it’s realism, might I’d right etc?

[ghostwriter]

> Ah it’s Ukrainian leaders fault that they were invaded and had their territory annexed?

Let me remind you what happened in 2014. The Ukrainian leaders of the successful armed coup did pass a bill to prohibit official use of minority languages on the eastern part of the country (dominated by Russian-speaking population) on a Sunday morning of February 23, 2014. It happened a day after their legitimately elected president (recognised by OSCE and PACE) had to flee the country. It was clearly a period of political crisis and no one was supposed to work and enact any legislation on that weekend day in the first place. No one was supposed to pass a bill of that significance without extended debates and a referendum specifically. But the coup leaders decided to move forward with it nonetheless. Russian troops legally stationed in Crimea took over the peninsula 4 days after that punitive act of the Ukraine government against its own russian-speaking population of the eastern part of the country. The reinforcement from Russia were only sent 6 days after the event, as the Kiyv regime decided to escalate. So yeah, that was utter barbarism on behalf of the coup leaders of Ukraine.

[padjo]

So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour an acceptable response is to annex territory and then launch a full scale invasion and attempt to decapitate their leadership?

[ghostwriter]

> So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour

I see how nicely you downplay the armed coup and the ethnic discrimination against former citizens of one of the sides (who voted to remain a single country in the past [1]) into a mere "political situation of a neighbour". However, that same argument wouldn't work for you on this same forum if you dared to suggest that NATO's "intervening into the political situation of Yugoslavia" wasn't OK.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#U...

[padjo]

I’m not downplaying, I disagree with characterising it as an armed coup but figured there’s no point in even talking to you about that.

So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery? I’m guessing from your tone you thing NATO involvement in Yugoslavia was bad? And you see Russian involvement in Ukraine as equivalent so…

[ghostwriter]

> So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery?

The thing that you call "whataboutery" is the basis of the Socratic method that every student who attended Philosophy 101 understands as an essential form of argument-building. Unfortunately to you, the whining of "whataboutery" that you've just demonstrated cannot serve as a rebuttal of anything but your aptitude for argument elaboration.

[lisasays]

In other words: "Yes".

[ghostwriter]

In other words you sound like an offended Ukrainian who got registered "77 days ago" and who had constantly been denying everything that didn't fit your agenda, including the political stance of your government prior 2014.

[lisasays]

"No", in other words.