Seems like you’re struggling with a concept of how governments work. People elect leaders who make political decisions. Donbas has always had elections, and the elected government invited Russia for help. I hope that one day you’ll be able to grok this complex concept.
Are you saying that any action taken by an elected government, even if it e.g. goes against what was promised during the election, and even if it has only e.g. 51% support, by definition has the support of the entire people?
If you don’t mean that, then please tell me which election you think indicated that the people wanted to be invaded? Was it the 2012 parliamentary election? Some other election? What exactly about that election result makes you think the people supported the intervention? Wss it the success of some specific candidates or parties with known agendas? Something else?
If you do mean that a government always by definition can do whatever and still represent the people, does that not mean that Russia can end the war no matter the popular opinion?
It would be good to know which of these two opinions you hold.
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).
Seems like you’re struggling with a concept of how governments work. People elect leaders who make political decisions. Donbas has always had elections, and the elected government invited Russia for help. I hope that one day you’ll be able to grok this complex concept.
Are you saying that any action taken by an elected government, even if it e.g. goes against what was promised during the election, and even if it has only e.g. 51% support, by definition has the support of the entire people?
If you don’t mean that, then please tell me which election you think indicated that the people wanted to be invaded? Was it the 2012 parliamentary election? Some other election? What exactly about that election result makes you think the people supported the intervention? Wss it the success of some specific candidates or parties with known agendas? Something else?
If you do mean that a government always by definition can do whatever and still represent the people, does that not mean that Russia can end the war no matter the popular opinion?
It would be good to know which of these two opinions you hold.
nice straw man bud
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.