Let me guess, you think that Ukrainians also really want to be part of Russia and that they are just being manipulated by Westerners and that true Ukrainians wanna be part of Russian Empire? And that Russians are just liberating them.
A key difference is that Ukraine has land borders with the EU, with significant potential for trade, while Georgia lacks land borders with the EU which limits the potential in harnessing the single market.
That's not a key difference though, that's the same situation Greece was from 1981 until 2007 when Bulgaria and Romania joined, and Ireland, Cyprus and Malta are still in this situation (unlikely to change). And again similar to Greece and Ireland Georgia has access to sea ports, and Bulgaria and Romanian ports are not far away.
Not sure where you got that. Sounds like trying to use tropes from a superficial Hollywood action movie in real life, not my thing.
I think that a Ukrainian in his sane mind would want to look at options he's dealt and pick the one that leads to most safety and prosperity to him and his family. At the same time the government ideologues are trying to indoctrinate him with nationalism to sacrifice it all for their goals. More or less the same for an average Russian in his sane mind.
I personally believe that 2014 (and not complying with Minsk 2) has set Ukraine on course that's much worse for the safety and prosperity of an average citizen (albeit better for the nationalist ideologues). Complying with Minsk 2 would give Russia a lot of control over Ukraine (pro-Russian East gets autonomy, but gets to vote on national elections), which would be bad for nationalists who are afraid (and rightfully so) of Ukraine's young statehood sink into oblivion. But would be alright for a citizen: no dramatic change, you keep gradually improving your life, no war, you don't die for nothing.
> I think that a Ukrainian in his sane mind would want to look at options he's dealt and pick the one that leads to most safety and prosperity to him and his family.
They have done this back in 2010's and decided that EU is the safe and prosperous future they want. In response, Russian mass murderers invaded and started to kill them. That is indeed a great ad for safety and prosperity inside the Russian world: you will be miserable and we will kill you whenever we feel like it.
There was no coup in Ukraine in 2014. It's one of those immediately revealing things like height of the chimneys in Auschwitz; just barely mention them and we all immediately know who you are.
Sure. And you keep babbling and restating your point instead of proving it because you've got an overwhelming proof, you're just too polite to share it with us.
Is this trolling by stupidity? You are irredeemable. I wasn't talking about elections, I meant everything before it that caused premature elections in 2014.
Was there something major that happened in 2013-2014 involving violence that interrupted the term of elected, legitimate president Yanukovich? Can you recall?
> Was there something major that happened in 2013-2014 involving violence that interrupted the term of elected, legitimate president Yanukovich?
Yes; under extreme Russian pressure, Yanukovych blocked the passage of the highly anticipated Ukraine-EU trade treaty. This led to massive protests. He sent paid thugs (titushky) to harass and beat the protesters, but the protests only grew larger. When he panicked, about 100 protesters were shot in a single day. From that moment, he was politically a corpse and lost the support of even his own party. He ran away into hiding to escape arrest, and the Ukrainian parliament assembled and unanimously voted to hold snap elections, which took place a few months later.
This is the polar opposite of illegal seizure of power by a small group of people, or a coup.
Are there any key details you're leaving out? Is there a chance you creatively picked what to leave out in a way that serves the view you're sympathetic to?
Yes, this is how democracy works. Then a decision is made and the society rolls with it. See the UK for example: a decision was made to leave the EU, they left, it cost them a lot of money and goodwill, but it works, worse than being in the EU but works. The EU did not invade, did not bomb their cities, did not rape their women and did not steal their children. And crucially the EU did not blame the citizens of the UK exercising their free will for mass murdering them.
I agree about democracy. What I was referring to is that part of the society didn't roll with the legitimate leader's decision not to align with EU in 2013. And it was undemocratic.
I stressed that it was split, and the democratic thing to do would be to wait another year until the next election, where everyone will be given equal opportunity to express their choice and determine what's the next thing we're rolling with. But we'll never know what they'd choose because some chose to protest, and then continue doing so when it git violent. Give me one reason why Maidan organizers couldn't go home in 2013 and just vote a year later.
Maybe there could have been a referendum on EU course. But we'll never know, since neither Yanukovich nor pro-EU leaders have conducted one.
> What I was referring to is that part of the society didn't roll with the legitimate leader's decision not to align with EU in 2013. And it was undemocratic.
So in a separate thread you are demanding a bit of history and here you are likely not mentioning a bit of history for a reason. Anyway.
The protests have not been 'undemocratic'. And the protesters did not decide to be murdered by snipers.
> But we'll never know what they'd choose because some chose to protest, and then continue doing so when it git violent.
Ah yes. Who exactly 'got violent'? Who authorised the decision to shoot to kill?
> Maybe there could have been a referendum on EU course.
Possibly, but let's not hold our breath whether the mass murderers in Moscow would respect the outcome if it didn't suit them.
Do you think that it is meaningful to think about things being good or evil in a manner that is separate from what is "safe" or "prosperous"? If someone points a gun at you and demands all your money, the safe thing is to give it to them. Does that mean it's a good outcome for all?
It is productive to think about the world in terms of good and evil. But if you really engage with more complex events in an intellectually honest way, you will always find that they cannot be easily mapped onto the poles of geopolitical conflicts, as you would like them to be, if I am interpreting the thrust of your question correctly.
If someone points a gun at you, if the threat seems credible, and if you are defenseless against it, and if you would rather be shot than hand over your wallet, then I can only interpret that as false pride, but not as rational behavior and certainly not as ethical behavior. This is all the more true if you are not making this decision for yourself alone.
It is not heroic to die because you did not want to give in out of personal pride, national consciousness, or other false ideals. It is heroic to accept a loss of face in such a difficult situation in order to avert or minimize harm to yourself and others.
I do believe that the discussion of good and evil is a meaningful one, but it's nuanced and we must be extremely careful with definitions and not to confuse ethics debate with irrational emotions.
If someone points a gun at me, I give the money. If life is a strategy game, then this is the moment where you need to sacrifice a piece in order for the game to even continue. And money is usually a pawn in the big picture of life. I may feel it's unfair or that my ego/honor is hurt, but I'd work though that with my therapist, analyze it philosophically and decide what to do next instead of responding emotionally.
I personally don't value nationalist sentiment. From a humanist perspective, associating yourself with one specific nation and making it your goal to serve the elites who actually control it is unjustifiable. There are things I'd consider good and evil, but they're much more universal and not tied to one's birthplace, taste or mood. Education, progress, science are good to me. So if something damages these, I may call it evil.
Ukraine is not one of these though, it is a conflict where principals are fighting for selfish interests, while working their propaganda machines very hard to convince us that their goals are actually universal and humanistic, to harvest us as a resource. Depending on which bucket you ate your slop from, you get one bias or another. As an average citizen, you should not fool yourself thinking that you're one with something great that you must sacrifice yourself for it, and don't full yourself thinking you're serving some great good.
For some reason, non-trivial amount of people prefer living in freedom instead of oppression, heck even risk their lives to have a better future for themselves and their children. russia offers none of that even to core russians, its a neonazi oligarch mafia state that treats its own citizens like disposable garbage, the minorities in far regions even much worse. I've grown up during communism in one of their subjugated vasal states, and we were basically in concentration camp - no movement outside the borders even within eastern bloc unless approved by regime, no freedom of thought or expression, any dissent was crushed brutally. Their troops in our country were around 5% of our population by numbers just to make sure there are no funky freedom ideas happening.
If you ever cared about history you can trivially find absolutely horrible things russians/soviets (always coming from moscow which always sets the tone) did consistently to Ukraine. If you ever care about facts you could trivially check how russian oppressors behave on conquered ukrainian territories these days - mass executions of civilians, torture chambers in every second home, old grannies shot in the back of their head from point blank range with hands tied behind their backs, lying in mass graves - the stories around 2023when Ukraine managed to free up some territory were pretty consistent.
So no, you are incorrect, if you ever cared about the topic you would know it pretty well. Or you know it and try to make some soft influence on the topic. Unfortunately russia is such a horrible actor these days, at this point universally and globally despised so that it became an insult to be called russian or associated with it in most places around the world. Their own doing, and when facing ridiculous defeat and humiliation they just double down in that clown theatre.
The fact that most russians still support invasion and random independent polls end up with consistent strong support for war and all ridiculous russian claims, leaves practically no hope for their future. Cancer of the humanity at this point, its easier to have more respect for North Korea regime.
