Hacker News Reader

Comment by photochemsyn | Hacker News Reader

Didn't much of the conflict in Ukraine from 2014 onwards arise from an effort to treat Russian-speaking Ukrainians as second-class citizens by the newly installed government?

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2014-01053...

For comparison, this would be like the U.S. government banning the use of Spanish or any other minority language, refusing to print translations of government documents in those languages, etc. Such a policy would certainly generate tension and resentment in areas like the Southwestern USA, and would be hard to characterize as 'liberal'.

Of course, in the context of TAPI and Afghanistan, the Ukraine war is just part of the ongoing struggle over who gets to sell fossil fuels to Europe, i.e. Russian pipeline gas vs USA tanker LNG.

View on HN

The conflict in Ukraine is caused by Russia's imperialistic and colonial mindset towards the rest of eastern Europe. They invaded because a majority of Ukrainian peoples wanted closer relationships with Europe and to throw off the yoke of Russian authoritarianism.

Majority?

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7158

Majority

https://www.iri.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/iri.org/2014%2...

US state-affiliated media

https://www.iri.org/news/national-endowment-for-democracy-ne...

Are you disputing the results? They seem inline with the article you shared as well as the actions of the Ukrainian people since 2014.

Russia's colonial relationship with the Ukrainian people has been disastrous and it is great to see them fighting against an imperialistic and genocidal regime.

Are you disputing Russia’s position? It seems in line with the actions of the Ukrainians in the Donbas region since 2014.

Edit, can’t reply:

Russia’s position is that Crimea and Donbas republics had the right to secede due to the fact that Yanukovych was removed via illegal coup (organized by the US). Ukrainian sovereignty was forfeit when Yanukovych was removed despite insufficient parliamentary votes to do so according to the Ukrainian constitution. The Minsk agreements, meant to resolve these disputes, were not implemented, and now based on statements by European leaders we know they were never intended to be implemented.

>Ukrainian sovereignty was forfeit when Yanukovych was removed despite insufficient parliamentary votes to do so according to the Ukrainian constitution.

How does one follow from the other?

Without a binding constitution, there is no formal legal basis for a polity and people are free to do as they wish. E.g., join the Russian Federation or constitute themselves as an independent republic.

Even if that was the case, how does that justify Russia's invasion? Russia has made massive changes to its constitution, doesn't that inherently weaken Putin's right to rule by your logic?

You're starting from the fact that Russia is more powerful than Ukraine and working backwards to find justifications for genocide.

They formed and announced a defense pact with the independent Donbas republics, which Ukraine then continued to attack (shelling civilian areas, by the way). So Russia responded militarily in order to provide for the security of the republics in accordance with that agreement. They have not committed genocide whatsoever.

Has Russia made changes to its constitution illegally? That would be news to me. There is of course a strong argument that the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was not constitutional based on the results of the referendum.

What is Russia's position?

What sovereignty does Russia have over Ukraine?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com