I love how you’re hamfistedly trying to set up a loaded question here. Go read up on how Ukraine was put together by USSR, and where Donbas comes from originally.
You yourself mentioned the elections and thst they legitimize the intervention. I want to know in which way? Is it because the intervention was “requested by an elected government” and thus by definition represents the will of the people, or is it because the result of the election reflects the population’s desire for an intervention?
But you mow seem to claim there is some third form how the intervention was legitimized that has nothing at all to do with the elections?
So let’s take a step back: is the intervention legitimized by an election, and if so, which one, or is it legitimized by the historical composition of the Soviet Union as you now seem to claim?
Yes, you were indeed quite clear. By absolutely refusing to say how elections legitimized the invasion, it is clear elections indeed did not legitimize it. That is why you pivoted to apparently saying that because Ukraine was once part of Russia, the population clearly must want it, even though it was thoroughly rejected already in the 1991 referendum (see how easy it is to mention a specific referenfum).
You clearly don’t care about the facts, and it’s not my job to educate you. All this information is publicly available, and if you genuinely cared then you’d learn what’s going on instead of trolling here. I just hope that one day you’ll be able to look back at what happen and do some introspection, but frankly I doubt that will ever happen.
You are right, it’s not your job to educate me. I would, however, hsve thought the purpose of discussing things is to try to convince others you are correct. Generally that is done by e.g. providing facts supported by sources. If all you csn say is “do your own research”, then what is the purpose of saying anything at all? If you have no interest in convincing me that I am wrong, why engage at all? I’m genuinly curious. At lest my purpose has been from the start to challenge your viewpoint by trying to understand your arguments by asking clarifying questions, and providing rebuttals bssed on facts (e.g. citing specific articles, referring to specific referendums etc.).
I truly want to understsnd why you think the people of e.g. Donbas would have supported an invssion pre-2014, but when I ask for e.g. what sources you base something on you switch argument.
Ok, what is the third option then?
I love how you’re hamfistedly trying to set up a loaded question here. Go read up on how Ukraine was put together by USSR, and where Donbas comes from originally.
That in no way answers the question.
You yourself mentioned the elections and thst they legitimize the intervention. I want to know in which way? Is it because the intervention was “requested by an elected government” and thus by definition represents the will of the people, or is it because the result of the election reflects the population’s desire for an intervention?
But you mow seem to claim there is some third form how the intervention was legitimized that has nothing at all to do with the elections?
So let’s take a step back: is the intervention legitimized by an election, and if so, which one, or is it legitimized by the historical composition of the Soviet Union as you now seem to claim?
I was very clear in what I said, if you can’t understand what I already wrote then I can’t help you.
Yes, you were indeed quite clear. By absolutely refusing to say how elections legitimized the invasion, it is clear elections indeed did not legitimize it. That is why you pivoted to apparently saying that because Ukraine was once part of Russia, the population clearly must want it, even though it was thoroughly rejected already in the 1991 referendum (see how easy it is to mention a specific referenfum).
Believe whatever you like.
I believe what facts show me, not what I want.
You clearly don’t care about the facts, and it’s not my job to educate you. All this information is publicly available, and if you genuinely cared then you’d learn what’s going on instead of trolling here. I just hope that one day you’ll be able to look back at what happen and do some introspection, but frankly I doubt that will ever happen.
You are right, it’s not your job to educate me. I would, however, hsve thought the purpose of discussing things is to try to convince others you are correct. Generally that is done by e.g. providing facts supported by sources. If all you csn say is “do your own research”, then what is the purpose of saying anything at all? If you have no interest in convincing me that I am wrong, why engage at all? I’m genuinly curious. At lest my purpose has been from the start to challenge your viewpoint by trying to understand your arguments by asking clarifying questions, and providing rebuttals bssed on facts (e.g. citing specific articles, referring to specific referendums etc.).
I truly want to understsnd why you think the people of e.g. Donbas would have supported an invssion pre-2014, but when I ask for e.g. what sources you base something on you switch argument.