Fabio Manganiello on Nostr: npub1lp34f…twl3w who shot to peaceful protesters in Independence Square has to be ...
npub1lp34ft9g29rwc22sgqr0wgyfjrp6hxrceuurf5c2n4s79c9zd93sutwl3w (npub1lp3…wl3w) who shot to peaceful protesters in Independence Square has to be clarified. If the shots were actually not fired by police forces, then the real culprits need to be punished.
But these reports ignore the simple fact that Yanukovich was a corrupt and very unpopular leader who stuffed all the levels of government with clientelism. My own friends were protesting in those days, risking their own lives together with tens of thousands of others - rest assured that they aren't American agents.
Later on, Zelenskiy won the elections on a strongly pro-European platform. Not with 51% of the votes, but with nearly 75%. Ukrainians were so desperate for change after being treated like a satellite of Russia that they democratically elected a comedian with no political experience because he promised them closer ties with Europe and less corruption. That definitely wasn't a coup, and the current government isn't illegal. Assuming that Yanukovich's ousting in 2014 was a coup (and I still have many doubts about that), then how do you call ousting a president elected with nearly three quarters of the votes years later?
As a parallel, take Belarus. Following the Russian textbook, Lukashenko jailed anyone who could pose a political threat to him, exiled his main political opponent, ended up with an election that was almost a joke, and quashed protests with forced incarcerations and gratuitous police violence. Did the EU call that a coup and invaded Belarus in response? Sure, we condemned them and put sanctions on them, but not a single soldier crossed the border. Then why should we allow Russia to behave differently?
> There is no higher authority above a nation. Nations must therefore do whatever is needed to protect themselves.
Absolutely not. International law exists for a reason, and the right to self-determination is an integral part of it. Invading a nation with internationally recognized borders is a violation of the UN treaties that most of the countries (including Russia) signed. Just because nobody seems to give a fuck about the UN and its resolutions and laws nowadays it doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. If we remove those founding international treaties, then only diplomacy, nuclear deterrent or greater military power are what separates a civilized world from a jungle of nations dropping rockets on one another.
But these reports ignore the simple fact that Yanukovich was a corrupt and very unpopular leader who stuffed all the levels of government with clientelism. My own friends were protesting in those days, risking their own lives together with tens of thousands of others - rest assured that they aren't American agents.
Later on, Zelenskiy won the elections on a strongly pro-European platform. Not with 51% of the votes, but with nearly 75%. Ukrainians were so desperate for change after being treated like a satellite of Russia that they democratically elected a comedian with no political experience because he promised them closer ties with Europe and less corruption. That definitely wasn't a coup, and the current government isn't illegal. Assuming that Yanukovich's ousting in 2014 was a coup (and I still have many doubts about that), then how do you call ousting a president elected with nearly three quarters of the votes years later?
As a parallel, take Belarus. Following the Russian textbook, Lukashenko jailed anyone who could pose a political threat to him, exiled his main political opponent, ended up with an election that was almost a joke, and quashed protests with forced incarcerations and gratuitous police violence. Did the EU call that a coup and invaded Belarus in response? Sure, we condemned them and put sanctions on them, but not a single soldier crossed the border. Then why should we allow Russia to behave differently?
> There is no higher authority above a nation. Nations must therefore do whatever is needed to protect themselves.
Absolutely not. International law exists for a reason, and the right to self-determination is an integral part of it. Invading a nation with internationally recognized borders is a violation of the UN treaties that most of the countries (including Russia) signed. Just because nobody seems to give a fuck about the UN and its resolutions and laws nowadays it doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. If we remove those founding international treaties, then only diplomacy, nuclear deterrent or greater military power are what separates a civilized world from a jungle of nations dropping rockets on one another.