[somenameforme]

In 2014 Ukraine overthrew their (democratically elected) pro-Russian president with extensive support from the US, leading numerous regions that are heavily ethnic Russian, including Crimea, to declare their independence. Western efforts to try to show the Crimean referendum was faked ended up doing the exact opposite [1] - and confirming that it was indeed reflective of the will of the overwhelming majority of people.

In 2019 Ukraine added joining NATO as a goal to their constitution, and the US was obviously rapidly moving in that direction with them. It was widely predicted that doing this would lead to war, and well here we are!

[1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-a...

[mopsi]

> In 2014 Ukraine overthrew their (democratically elected) pro-Russian president with extensive support from the US

Wrong. The Ukrainian parliament voted 328-vs-0 to hold early elections after the sitting president got over hundred protesters killed and ran away from the country fearing criminal prosecution.

> leading numerous regions that are heavily ethnic Russian, including Crimea, to declare their independence.

Wrong again. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that it was an operation by Russian military and security services. They could not find any evidence of an actual separatist movement.

> In 2019 Ukraine added joining NATO as a goal to their constitution

... which is 5 years after Russia invaded Ukraine.

> the US was obviously rapidly moving in that direction with them

Again, obviously wrong. Three years later, by the time Russia launched the full-scale invasion, Ukraine was still nowhere near joining the NATO. We saw rapid timeline with Sweden and Finland. Informal negotiations started early 2022, formal invitation issued June 2022, all ratifications complete by national parliaments by April 2023 (Finland) and March 2024 (Sweden). To this day, Ukraine has not even been invited to start talks. The process hasn't even begun yet.

---

What's the point of posting obvious lies and excuses? These are not even valid arguments, but clear factually incorrect statements.

[aguaviva]

Leading numerous regions that are heavily ethnic Russian, including Crimea, to declare their independence.

I have three questions for you:

(1) Can you name one of the regions Putin is attempting to annex, aside from Crimea, that was "heavily ethnic Russian?"

(2) Can you explain the circumstances which caused that particular region to have a majority Russian-identified population? (In just a sentence or two, please).

(3) Something else happened in 2014, in between the two events that you claim happened. Why is this missing from your chronology?

[somenameforme]

(1) Donbas - though Russia was not initially attempting to annex this area. The negotiations scrapped by the West would have left these regions as something like special administrative regions under Ukraine, akin to what Russia had already been trying to relatively peacefully achieve for a decade with the Minsk accords.

(2) Coal + industrialization + peasants seeking a better life.

(3) Actually quite a lot happened, but I assume you're referencing the fact that a small number of Russian forces were deployed to Crimea. A practical issue when territory "peacefully" changes hands is deterring the former "owners" from simply coming in and trying to kill everybody to immediately reclaim it. The important issue is whether those forces drove coercion or otherwise manipulated the outcome of the referendum in a way outside the will of the people. This is what the West tried to prove, but they instead ended up proving the exact opposite! Incidentally, a comparable referendum held in Donbas was likely outside the will of the people, and consequently - Russia did not recognize it.

[aguaviva]

The answer to (1) is "None of them". In the most recent cenus before the war, the all identified as solidly (>70 percent) Ukrainian.

(2) Coal + industrialization + peasants seeking a better life.

The question referred to the Crimea, not the Donbas.

If you wish, you can answer the question: "Can you explain the circumstances which caused the Crimea have a majority Russian-identified population?"

I'd be genuinely curious as to your response.

[somenameforme]

#1 is not accurate. Here [1] is a visual map of the last census showing the percent in each region where Russian is the native language, which is a reasonable proxy for Russian ethnicity. This [2] shows Ukrainian ethnicity by region. That census is also from 2001. It's unclear what happened in the 13 years to 2014, though after 2014 it's safe to say it became majority ethnic Russian due to the constant conflict going on. That area in the East/Northeast is Donbas of course.

Crimea is far easier on #2. Crimea has never been majority (or plurality) Ukrainian. Prior to the Russians it was Tatars, but they were exiled after WW2 by Stalin for collaboration with the Nazis. The reason Crimea ended up under Ukrainian control is because in 1954 Khrushchev 'gifted' it to Ukraine to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Pereiaslav Agreement. That agreement is when the Cossacks that lived in 'the ukraine' (Ukraine translates to something like at the borderlands/frontier) signed a treaty swearing allegiance to Russia. At the time of the gift it was mostly just a token gesture, because Ukraine was just another normal part of the USSR and so basically nothing changed.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_U...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_U...