>
>according to you there are several 'disputed territories' in
>ukraine that want independence from this sovereign nation.
>
>and according to you (for some odd reason) this is
>rationalization/justification for *another* country waging war
>and invading this sovereign nation.
>
>and also according to you...this sovereign nation wanting to
>join a multinational organization under its own free will...is
>somehow a logical reason for putin to want to wage war against
>it.
>
>but werent you just trying to lecture folks on 'american
>exceptionalism' and clamoring for war?


Let me help you out:

1. I don't agree with the persistent refusal to recognize those separatist territories' independence; I don't believe that NATO expansion should be non-negotiable; and I don't support Putin's current war against Ukraine (which is clearly a proxy conflict about so much more than Donbas). Just bc you and I disagree on one or more of these points doesn't mean I support Putin and this war. Stop trying to force everything into stupid binaries.

2. As I mentioned elsewhere, those territories want nothing to do with Ukraine lol. They've held referendums affirming their declarations of independence, formed their own parliaments, held general elections, adopted the Russian legal system, etc. Even as this current crisis escalated, the civilians in those territories evacuated to Russia not Ukraine (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/18/russian-backed-separatists-announce-evacuation-from-east-ukraine). So, especially after this past week's events, how can anyone argue that holding on to these territories isn't more of a liability to Ukraine than letting them go? I think Ukraine's policy should have focused on legalizing/finalizing peaceful separation from the beginning - just like Boris Yeltsin did for Ukraine in 1991 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of_Ukraine#International_recognition) - rather than this pipe dream of re-integration (one of few areas I think Zelensky fucked up by not distancing himself further from previous pres Poroshenko's heavy-handed nationalism). But apart from that, all of this is pretty important context that the West insisted on downplaying, in favor of a narrative justifying some supposedly inevitable East v. West showdown with Putin if he dared cross the border into Donbas. A dare we watched this maniac swiftly take up since he's obsessed over Russia winning that showdown his entire life.

3. Yes, I do think you should check your American Exceptionalism. What makes those territories' Declarations of Independence any less meaningful than America's Declaration of Independence when it sought to separate from Britain? Or Ukraine's own Declaration when it sought to seperate from the USSR? If the separatist territories haven't considered themselves part of Ukraine since 2014, then neither do I; not unlike how I recognize the State of Palestine even tho it's still not recognized by Israel. I should prob also mention that I'm only one generation out of Africa and decolonization wasn't that long ago; and for this and other reasons I view declarations of independence, pursuits of statehood, and the right to self-determination as extremely sacred.



>
>russia waging war and invading a free country on behalf of
>separatist territories...isnt that the same as america
>invading countries like iraq, vietnam, korea, etc on behalf of
>anti-regime groups, anti-communist allies, 'democracy', etc?
>
>(answer: yes it is lol)
>


American imperialism doesn't validate Russian Imperialism tho. Also, if the DPR and LPR *requested* Russia's military presence eg. https://www.dw.com/en/russia-says-donbas-separatists-ask-putin-for-military-support/a-60893224 (whether or not they knew it was for a dubious reason), then in my perspective Putin didn't invade and wage war on Ukraine until he LEFT the DPR. Your argument only makes sense if one doesn't recognize DPR and LPR independence, and if one thinks the Donbas issue centres Putin's gripe with Ukraine as opposed to the NATO issue and other grievances pertaining to Western influence. I don't believe such assessments are true.


>how do you explain away the obvious hypocrisy and
>contradiction here?
>
>you speak of these russian 'annexes' like corporate mergers
>lol. these are violent wars and takeovers of other countries.
> wheres that anti-war anti-imperialist energy from you on
>russia tho? are the russians fighting for these other peoples
>freedoms? lol.
>
>and im still waiting for you to elaborate on why youre so
>critical of everyone *but* the specific person who is
>initiating this war lol. you accuse everyone else of
>escalation but putin (who...once again...is the only one
>massively building up his military on the border of another
>country). its so weird.
>

One of my first responses to this post was a damn near essay ranting about Putin's imperialism, but nice try. As for this crisis, I've voiced multiple times in this post my disappointment in BOTH Putin's and the US' incendiary postures in the months leading up to this crisis. I have the right to feel that way about political affairs that can affect me and people I care about without fielding baseless accusations from you and your little gang of okp thoughtpolice.


>youve taken up this delusional stance that it is everyone
>elses responsibility to not make putin take militar action
>that he has already been building up towards for months
>unprovoked.
>
>


Engaging meaningfully with a volatile adversary to avert nuclear war/WW3 is called DIPLOMACY - literally one of the most crucial portfolios of any political leader. You, imho, are the one being delusional if you honestly think the US - permanently represented as Supreme Allied Commander as well as NATO's top supplier of funding and troops - didn't bear an outsized role in the alliance's refusal to consider basic concessions with Russia about concerns wrt eastward expansion (eg. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/biden-putin-meeting-nato-ukraine/2021/12/06/71225812-5677-11ec-8396-5552bef55c3c_story.html). It's beyond obvious that Biden's leveraging Putin's megalomania as cover for his and Blinken's failure to neutralize Putin's threat (eg. all that "he alone" and "unprovoked" talk). And now, as a result of their diplomatic failure, EVERYONE in the West - not just Americans but Canadians, Brits, Germans, Central Europeans, and most importantly Ukrainians etc - are getting dragged into potentially cataclysmic conflict that could have been avoided.



>btw...bringing it back...as a condition of ukrainian
>independence, acknowledgement of its territorial integrity,
>and freedom from military aggression by russia...ukraine gave
>russia its nuclear weapons and signed a non-proliferation
>agreement with countries *including russia*.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
>
>so ukraine unilaterally disarmed itself of the type of weapons
>that historically deter invasions (with the assurance russia
>would never attack it). russia violated this clear agreement
>with the invasion of crimea in 2014 and is on the verge of
>doing it again.
>
>care to speak on that? (or is it everyone elses fault for
>making putin violate that agreement lol)
>


Well, you're kinda mixing things up here. Ukraine's been independent since 1991 - after declaring it's own independence, holding a referendum, and forming a government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#Independence (note: not unlike what Crimea, DPR, and LPR have done). It disarmed and sought security assurances in that ---> *1994* <--- Budapest agreement because it wanted "accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons/NPT" (https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf). So the first error in your premise is that Ukraine's independence was conditioned; it was essentially a peace agreement.

From what I understand, the (imho weak) legal argument that Putin and Lavrov tried to make is that Russia's recognition of and cooperation with Crimea, DPR, LPR, etc are not an affront to Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity, or treaty commitments bc after the territories in question declared independence and formed their own governments, they were no longer represented by the Ukraine government (eg. https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-698237). I think I read at least one intl law expert allude to a similar interpretation, but even assuming that's total bullshit MY position is that the dispute was clearly a legal quagmire that could've been settled btwn the separatist territories and Ukraine alone. WITHOUT American or Russian warmongering, threats of "swift and severe" escalation, etc.

Now had your question been whether I think Russia violated the Budapest agreement by venturing beyond the separatist territories to invade/attack Ukraine "proper" I would be more resolute in my "yes". But even then, Russia is hardly the only signatory of the Budapest Agreement or the NPT that's disregarded a peace agreement. So as long as you KTSE for the US (or other violently imperialist states like Israel who are not a signatory of these particular instruments but similarly obscure their nuclear programs, disregard peace agreements, and pursue relentless expansion of their sphere of influence) then I'm with you. But you're not about to have me condemning Crimea, DPR, and LPR for cooperating - as newly formed states/governments trying to find their footing - with their only major ally just bc we don't like their ally, or framing such cooperation as a justification for war.