Didnt see your past answers, maybe it was directed to someone else?
Anyway dont take it personaly, I appreciate debates too much for my own health
The old government was basically totally corrupt and the president was embezzling statemoney and was holding on to his power with great determination.
Only Yanukovitch corruption was proved, and that was AFTER the movement was over. It began on the "usual" accusation of corruption that all opposing forces always uses for such movements to increase their legitimacy.
You believe the new government is totally pure and uncorruptible? How do you know? If I start a movement today, and it fails to remove the old power forcefully, even though we have the proofs that the new regime is as corrupt as the old, where is truth and where is legality having a place?
Both movements were/are illegal and based on assumptions/lies.
And the fact that ethnic russians living in Ukraine are not as welcome as before is once again Russias own fault.
How is ethnic russian ukrainian responsible of Russia diplomacy with Ukraine and other states?
Ukraine's main goal is to be an independent country.
Because if a part of Ukraine becomes a new country or join another, Ukraine will lose independance?
Donensks main goal is to be annexed by Russia or totally controlled by it.
If thats what the new legal and legitimate government of Donetsk wants, how can you legally intervene in the decision process?
I also remind you that many "demands" have been processed to the government of Kiev since the first days of the revolt, and it the list included far more than just "being annexed to Russia", not even "becoming new country". Ask serr or dave what has been the various demands and he will give you more details than I could.
Why has the list become more "extreme"? Being called terrorists and actively warred on could have influenced, or maybe the demands gradually increased to push to the limits.
If Donensk was a truly rebelling country wanting independence, I think majority of the world would be happy with that(publicly anyway). But the rebellion in donensk is nothing but a form of annexation. So its hardly suprising majority of the world frowns deeply at Russia for trying to claim lands for itself practically at the center of Europe.
If by any chance, the only demand had been to become a new independant state, it would still have been deemed a move to create a puppet state or something alike, rinse and repeat, world diplomacy would not have supported it.
My opinion (its far too rare that I express it directly
) is that, if you deny Russia involvement, eastern ukraine uprisings have as much legitimacy as maidan, and as much reasons they should succeed.
Russia is polluting the rebellion with its own ideals, and probably manpower, and thus depriving it from having a much needed popularity boost, be it from their own population, and worldwide.
Maidan was a very long and warry siege of a part of the Ukraine capital and had, at the end, a hundred dead. They fought to change the course of their country to become more european centered.
The eastern ukraine revolt is not yet over, has been longer than the maidan occupation and has claimed more than tenfold lives. They are fighting to change the course of a corner of their country to become more russian centered, even totally Russian.
I dont see any moral highground.
Poll