Discussion Separatism in Ukraine and double standards.

[ibex333]

I know I risk a lot of hate, and being called Putin's bot, whataboutist, and whatnot, but let's just TRY and be civil here. Let's try some objectivity instead of bias. And yes, I admit I may not know enough about history to make my arguments.

So, I was thinking... Remember the dissolution of the Soviet Union? All those little guys that weren't happy with the way they were managed? Poland split. Then Georgia... Then many others. Kazakhstan, Ukraine... So many of them. They all split away. Why did they split? Because they weren't happy. They did not want to live like this. They wanted to make their own rules.

Ok, so HOW EXACTLY, is this different from republics of Donetsk and Luhansk seeking independence from Ukraine?!

I heard the arguments before. Donetsk and Luhansk are a part of Ukraine and have no right to separate! Well, if you think about it like this, Poland had "no right" to separate from USSR either, no? Why did everyone support one thing, and so vehemently rejecting the other?

I mean, it's not without reason these separatists want to split! Both republics used to be a part of USSR once. Their native language is Russian. Not Ukranian. So is their way of life. You can argue that these people should just get the F out, if they don't like the new Ukranian way of life. But that's exactly what they are trying to do. They are trying to separate, along with their lands, just like Poland did back in the day.

When Ukraine split from USSR, its government slowly started appeasing Ukranian nationalists more and more. First, it was the overall anti-Russian sentiment (which is understandable, given past history), but then words turned into actions. They outlawed Russian is schools, they started forcing people to speak exclusively in Ukranian. There were even occasional attacks on Russian speakers just for speaking Russian. Eventually there was a horrific event in the Ukranian city of Odessa, where some pro-Russian demonstrators were attacked by nationalists, and chased into a large building. This building was then torched, and the pro-Russians were burned alive, while the nationalists were waiting under the windows for people to jump out just to shoot them in the head or beat them to death. This is historical fact, not some made up pro-Putin BS. Here's the link: Ukrainian rightists burn alive 39 at Odessa union building (peoplesworld.org)

You can't just ignore Ukraine's past history, and "outlaw" Russian language and Russian customs, any more than you can outlaw Spanish in United states. Trying to kill people in Ukraine for wanting to live the Russian way while remaining on their native land is wrong.

Now, PLEASE, don't confuse my arguments, with supporting Putin's war, and annexing large swaths of land! It's one thing for some people trying to split, and a whole other thing to start a full-scale war over all this and use that as an excuse for the incursion into a separate country. There were other tools at Russia's disposal to support those they wanted to support.

The main point of my post is to discuss how the separatists in Ukraine are different from the separatists anywhere else in the world, and why they are deemed to be "in the wrong" by the world while others just like them are "in the right".

 

[Pens1566]

For one, the alleged referendums weren't legit. And TBH, that's all you really need.

 

[Brainonska511]

Poland was its own country before it was conquered by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

When separatists are trained and paid by another country, it's not separatists, it's enemy action. And yes, same applies if the US does it.

 

[senseamp]

What remained of USSR agreed to dissolve.

Belovezha Accords - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It's not clear if there was significant demand for separatism in those regions until the armed Russians showed up and stirred up the pot, unlike the Crimea. But even there, it should not be for third party Russia to send troops.

 

[biostud]

Poland was its own country before it was conquered by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Exactly, USSR was not all the countries in the Warsaw pact.

 

[fskimospy]

I know I risk a lot of hate, and being called Putin's bot, whataboutist, and whatnot, but let's just TRY and be civil here. Let's try some objectivity instead of bias. And yes, I admit I may not know enough about history to make my arguments.

So, I was thinking... Remember the dissolution of the Soviet Union? All those little guys that weren't happy with the way they were managed? Poland split. Then Georgia... Then many others. Kazakhstan, Ukraine... So many of them. They all split away. Why did they split? Because they weren't happy. They did not want to live like this. They wanted to make their own rules.

Ok, so HOW EXACTLY, is this different from republics of Donetsk and Luhansk seeking independence from Ukraine?!

I heard the arguments before. Donetsk and Luhansk are a part of Ukraine and have no right to separate! Well, if you think about it like this, Poland had "no right" to separate from USSR either, no? Why did everyone support one thing, and so vehemently rejecting the other?

I mean, it's not without reason these separatists want to split! Both republics used to be a part of USSR once. Their native language is Russian. Not Ukranian. So is their way of life. You can argue that these people should just get the F out, if they don't like the new Ukranian way of life. But that's exactly what they are trying to do. They are trying to separate, along with their lands, just like Poland did back in the day.

When Ukraine split from USSR, its government slowly started appeasing Ukranian nationalists more and more. First, it was the overall anti-Russian sentiment (which is understandable, given past history), but then words turned into actions. They outlawed Russian is schools, they started forcing people to speak exclusively in Ukranian. There were even occasional attacks on Russian speakers just for speaking Russian. Eventually there was a horrific event in the Ukranian city of Odessa, where some pro-Russian demonstrators were attacked by nationalists, and chased into a large building. This building was then torched, and the pro-Russians were burned alive, while the nationalists were waiting under the windows for people to jump out just to shoot them in the head or beat them to death. This is historical fact, not some made up pro-Putin BS. Here's the link: Ukrainian rightists burn alive 39 at Odessa union building (peoplesworld.org)

You can't just ignore Ukraine's past history, and "outlaw" Russian language and Russian customs, any more than you can outlaw Spanish in United states. Trying to kill people in Ukraine for wanting to live the Russian way while remaining on their native land is wrong.

Now, PLEASE, don't confuse my arguments, with supporting Putin's war, and annexing large swaths of land! It's one thing for some people trying to split, and a whole other thing to start a full-scale war over all this and use that as an excuse for the incursion into a separate country. There were other tools at Russia's disposal to support those they wanted to support.

The main point of my post is to discuss how the separatists in Ukraine are different from the separatists anywhere else in the world, and why they are deemed to be "in the wrong" by the world while others just like them are "in the right".

As others have said the main difference is that when there was a free and fair vote those areas chose to leave the USSR and become part of independent Ukraine. There has never been a free and fair referendum on independence from Ukraine in those areas and so you can't really invoke self-determination here.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Ok, so HOW EXACTLY, is this different from republics of Donetsk and Luhansk seeking independence from Ukraine?!

Sham referendums do not equate seeking independence.

 

[Moonbeam]

The main point of my post is to discuss how the separatists in Ukraine are different from the separatists anywhere else in the world, and why they are deemed to be "in the wrong" by the world while others just like them are "in the right".

I can't really add to the information you have already been given, the rational differences that others have suggested. What I can maybe suggest we look at a different approach via an analysis of the framework from which your question arises.

I believe you are suggesting that it is improper for something to be considered good in one case and not another, which implies there is a good and you know what it is. But this is exactly how people you believe are applying that principle incorrectly have what is good and evil reversed. This means that what you consider to be good they consider to be evil and visa versa. In this way each considers the other to be evil and themselves to be good and since everyone knows that the good is better than evil each side can never be convinced by the other side they are wrong.

This means that the real definition of bigotry is believing that what you believe is the good actually is the good, and the any release from the certainty that good should triumph, the good you believe in that may actually not be the good, will feel like an admission there is no such thing as the good. But we all know instinctively that good is good and evil is evil so we are stuck with our fanatical condition. We have to hold on or life will be seen meaningless.

But what if in fact life is meaningless, that there is nothing whatsoever that you can actually prove is the good, that you have been brainwashed into believing in something that does not exist.

Have you noted that even those who believe that God is a fairy tale believe they are right and can't prove it anymore than those who believe can prove there is a God.

But what is a person full of suffering that the world is full of evil to do, just give up and surrender and succumb to hopelessness and dread? Yes, exactly, why not since that is obviously correct.

What is the fate of the person who lets go, who surrenders to the utter indifference of the universe, who dies to everything he was taught to hold sacred?

 

[biostud]

Every sovereign and democratic nation, will at some point experience that someone wants to leave and create their own nation. Maybe there is something written in the nation's constitution, or maybe the government will have to handle the situation ad hoc, but it will be handled within the legal state.

Sometimes separatists turn to terrorism and sometimes these separatists are backed foreign nations, that have interest in the country being separated. This is not democratic and not within the legal state cannot be accepted by democratic countries.

 

[brycejones]

I know I risk a lot of hate, and being called Putin's bot, whataboutist, and whatnot, but let's just TRY and be civil here. Let's try some objectivity instead of bias. And yes, I admit I may not know enough about history to make my arguments.

So, I was thinking... Remember the dissolution of the Soviet Union? All those little guys that weren't happy with the way they were managed? Poland split. Then Georgia... Then many others. Kazakhstan, Ukraine... So many of them. They all split away. Why did they split? Because they weren't happy. They did not want to live like this. They wanted to make their own rules.

Ok, so HOW EXACTLY, is this different from republics of Donetsk and Luhansk seeking independence from Ukraine?!

I heard the arguments before. Donetsk and Luhansk are a part of Ukraine and have no right to separate! Well, if you think about it like this, Poland had "no right" to separate from USSR either, no? Why did everyone support one thing, and so vehemently rejecting the other?

I mean, it's not without reason these separatists want to split! Both republics used to be a part of USSR once. Their native language is Russian. Not Ukranian. So is their way of life. You can argue that these people should just get the F out, if they don't like the new Ukranian way of life. But that's exactly what they are trying to do. They are trying to separate, along with their lands, just like Poland did back in the day.

When Ukraine split from USSR, its government slowly started appeasing Ukranian nationalists more and more. First, it was the overall anti-Russian sentiment (which is understandable, given past history), but then words turned into actions. They outlawed Russian is schools, they started forcing people to speak exclusively in Ukranian. There were even occasional attacks on Russian speakers just for speaking Russian. Eventually there was a horrific event in the Ukranian city of Odessa, where some pro-Russian demonstrators were attacked by nationalists, and chased into a large building. This building was then torched, and the pro-Russians were burned alive, while the nationalists were waiting under the windows for people to jump out just to shoot them in the head or beat them to death. This is historical fact, not some made up pro-Putin BS. Here's the link: Ukrainian rightists burn alive 39 at Odessa union building (peoplesworld.org)

You can't just ignore Ukraine's past history, and "outlaw" Russian language and Russian customs, any more than you can outlaw Spanish in United states. Trying to kill people in Ukraine for wanting to live the Russian way while remaining on their native land is wrong.

Now, PLEASE, don't confuse my arguments, with supporting Putin's war, and annexing large swaths of land! It's one thing for some people trying to split, and a whole other thing to start a full-scale war over all this and use that as an excuse for the incursion into a separate country. There were other tools at Russia's disposal to support those they wanted to support.

The main point of my post is to discuss how the separatists in Ukraine are different from the separatists anywhere else in the world, and why they are deemed to be "in the wrong" by the world while others just like them are "in the right".

How to tell us you've been guzzling propaganda without telling us you've been guzzling propaganda.

 

[fskimospy]

How to tell us you've been guzzling propaganda without telling us you've been guzzling propaganda.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable question. I think there's a good answer to why they are different but I don't think it's wrong to ask.

 

[JTsyo]

Off the top of my head there are separatist movements in many places. They usually can't unilaterally decide without approval from the capital.

Kurds in Turkey
Kashmir in India
Tibet in China
Basque and Catalonia in Spain
Scotland in the UK
Texas in the US

Let's see which of these are allowed to be independent before we worry about occupied Ukrainian lands.

 

[brycejones]

I think it's a perfectly reasonable question. I think there's a good answer to why they are different but I don't think it's wrong to ask.

Maybe I'm just frustrated because this has been litigated repeatedly in the Ukraine thread.

 

[pauldun170]

"Fuck this thread"

 

[hal2kilo]

Off the top of my head there are separatist movements in many places. They usually can't unilaterally decide without approval from the capital.

Kurds in Turkey
Kashmir in India
Tibet in China
Basque and Catalonia in Spain
Scotland in the UK
Texas in the US

Let's see which of these are allowed to be independent before we worry about occupied Ukrainian lands.

Scotland is free and can vote to remain or stay. Shouldn't be on the list.

 

[pmv]

Poland was its own country before it was conquered by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Not sure that's a killer-argument given that Poland was its own country, then it wasn't, then it was again, then it wasn't again, then it kind-of was again but really wasn't, then it was again...and at each stage its borders moved to the point where the whole country effectively relocated, plus it itself has attempted to conquer and seize parts of neighbouring countries more than once. Borders in that part of the world are far from fixed.

I think the question is whether those regions of Ukraine really _do_ want to join Russia (the evidence is not very clear).

Plus what I'd call the Galtieri effect applies - if there was at any point a legit case for redrawing that border, Putin has destroyed any argument for it, and rendered it unachievable in practice, by trying to achieve it via military force (with particularly indiscriminate violence, to boot).

To be honest, before the invasion, I'd have said I really didn't have any strong opinion as to where the borders were over there. Now it seems quite important that Putin loses.

 

[pmv]

Scotland is free and can vote to remain or stay. Shouldn't be on the list.

Well, one would have said that till very recently, when our utterly-crap government argued that the Scots aren't allowed to hold another referendum without UK parliament's explicit permission.

I really don't care about Scottish independence either way (often seems to me the Scots get a pretty good deal as things are - it constantly annoys me that there's this perception that "London" is full of rich people, while both Scotland and the North of England are hard-done-by, when the reality is quite different). (And the Northern parts of England elect a far higher proportion of Tory MPs than does London).

But the Tories are clearly the biggest driver of independence sentiment in Scotland - banning Scots from even having a vote on the topic seems akin to declaring they are prisoners rather than willing partners.

 

[pmv]

As others have said the main difference is that when there was a free and fair vote those areas chose to leave the USSR and become part of independent Ukraine. There has never been a free and fair referendum on independence from Ukraine in those areas and so you can't really invoke self-determination here.

Did those areas vote to join Ukraine? I thought Ukrainian independence just took the already-existing borders (laid down long ago by the USSR) and the referendum was a nation-wide one, not region-by-region?

 

[itsmydamnation]

Did those areas vote to join Ukraine? I thought Ukrainian independence just took the already-existing borders (laid down long ago by the USSR) and the referendum was a nation-wide one, not region-by-region?

let me google that for you.

1991 Ukrainian independence referendum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Vic]

Could someone please explain how Donetsk and Luhansk's purported desire for independence justifies Russia's attack on Ukraine?

 

[Bitek]

Could someone please explain how Donetsk and Luhansk's purported desire for independence justifies Russia's attack on Ukraine?

You'd have to ask the Russian Foreign Ministry as they've been peddling this around.

Also related is the "they speak a different language, so of course they can't belong to the same country"

By this logic, the US is justified to invade Alberta because they speak English and not French, and are not keen on the central Canadian govt, so sayeth the activists we promote publicly to speak for all Canadians...

 

[Vic]

You'd have to ask the Russian Foreign Ministry as they've been peddling this around.

Also related is the "they speak a different language, so of course they can't belong to the same country"

By this logic, the US is justified to invade Alberta because they speak English and not French, and are not keen on the central Canadian govt, so sayeth the activists we promote publicly to speak for all Canadians...

What I mean is that Russia's attack on Ukraine's sovereignty is unjustifiable under almost any circumstances. Ukraine was legally in possession of the territory, and if the people of Donetsk and Luhansk wanted to secede there were lawful means available for them to attempt to do so. War was not one of those. Russia's invasion even less so. If a vote needed to be held to decide the issue, it needed to held before the invasion, not after.

 

[Bitek]

What I mean is that Russia's attack on Ukraine's sovereignty is unjustifiable under almost any circumstances. Ukraine was legally in possession of the territory, and if the people of Donetsk and Luhansk wanted to secede there were lawful means available for them to attempt to do so. War was not one of those. Russia's invasion even less so. If a vote needed to be held to decide the issue, it needed to held before the invasion, not after.

I agree, I'm being sarcastic towards the op.

But I'm not sure I'd agree even a simple vote by the seceding territory or state is acceptable. The rest of the country has a say as well. A compact has been entered, and a break up is destructive to the whole and can't be unilateral.

I can't realistically think of an scenario where a state, or county even, voted to secede the greater country would allow it. Even if it was Florida.

We'd send in the troops and put down the rabble rousers.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Poland was its own country before it was conquered by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

But had only reemerged as an independent country after the dissolution of the Austria-Hungarian empire following World War 1. Even when Poland has existed, its borders have hardly been stable.



Which lends some credence to the question being raised by the OP. The turmoil over countries and their borders in Eastern Europe has been going on for centuries and played large roles in the beginnings of both World Wars. It also invites the kind of reckless adventurism that Putin is engaging in now.