Ukraine has been fighting Russia for nearly a decade, with active if low-level warfare in the Donbass region the entire time. I wouldn't exactly call that "accept[ing] it and liv[ing] on."
From about 2017 the war was very low-level, limited to some artillery duels. And those duels weren't entirely Ukrainian choice, if Russia shoots at you, you can't just ignore it.
Remember when the local "insurrection" to kijev marched into the theater in kherson because they thought it the regional governments office. For all their propaganda multitudes fines online, they are just lethal clowns on the ground, unable to innovate, because bound by puppeteer strings. Ukraine will win. Moscovia will fall apart once again.
Not quite! The immediate history here plays a huge role in where we're at today. In the 2014 the US backed a [coup, revolution, insurrection - whatever you want to call it] in Ukraine that saw their democratically elected pro-Russian President overthrown. Numerous Ukrainian territories that also leaned pro-Russia refused to recognize the new government and declared their independence, the Donbas region and Crimea among them.
For the 8 years from 2014 to 2022 Ukraine was intermittently attacking and shelling these breakaway territories (excepting Crimea, which had become part of Russia) which were (and are) largely populated with ethnic Russians, and Russia was "secretly" protecting them. This led to a series of treaties, The Minsk Accords [1], to try to arrange peace between Russia and Ukraine, and give the breakaway territories some sort of special status while remaining under Ukraine.
These treaties were always violated. And while this was happening Ukraine was increasingly fortifying and arming itself, as well as seeking to join NATO - which NATO was, sincerely or not, indulging. This all really set the stage for where we are today. It also sets the stage for where we're going tomorrow, because the inability to maintain any sort of a peace over these regions is going to make obtaining a 'minimally unfavorable' settlement for Ukraine, over this war, much more difficult.
None if this is true. For example, the "pro-Russian President" wasn't overthrown. At Russian pressure, he ditched a very favorable trade agreement with the EU that would've opened up many new business opportunities for Ukrainians. When protesters assembled, he ordered police snipers to shoot at them, killing 108 people. He fled to Russia the next day and Ukraine's parliament voted to remove him from office, and scheduled new elections, which were held three months later.
Wiki has a surprisingly good timeline of the event. [1] Even the identity of the snipers has, again, a quite reasonable page on Wiki. [2] You might want to at least add in the whole thing about "protesters" shooting at police officers to try to escalate the conflict, occupying government buildings and seizing substantial quantities of weapons, Western cities (which tend to be very pro-EU and anti-Russia for those not familiar with the geography of Ukraine) spontaneously refusing to acknowledge the President's authority, and ultimately the military as well.
Even the end of it all was quite odd. There was a settlement agreed upon, but far right types refused to accept anything short of the President's ouster, and the government was then subsequently directly threatened by the now in control "protesters". Following said threats riot police and others that were guarding the presidential compound "vanished." [3] And it was in this context that Yanukovych fled. Had he not, he probably would have been killed.
If you lack interest in reading all the sources yourself, feel free to ask for the specific reference of any single thing I've said and I'll happily cite it for you.
> People of Ukraine did the revolution. The western backing you’re talking about was limited to vague verbal expressions of support.
Obviously no revolution can happen without popular dissatisfaction and massive popular support for an alternative. But I think the Nuland-Pyatt call leak firmly puts to bed the notion that US involvement was 'limited to vague verbal expressions of support.'
Are you referring to that leaked call? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 If the leak is true, the people in the call are doing precisely what they publicly said they were doing — trying to negotiate a peaceful political resolution of the ongoing crisis.
As shown by the events which followed, all their talks achieved absolutely nothing.
The resolution of the crisis in Ukraine was neither peaceful nor political. Instead, couple weeks after the alleged call the crisis was resolved after the bloodshed on February 18-20.
Then Russia has launched military invasion, escalating the internal political crisis into an international war. Sadly, the war is still ongoing, despite almost 10 years have passed since these events.
The reason Yatsenyuk became a prime minister, on February 27, 2014 the parliament of Ukraine made him so, with 371 out of 450 deputies supporting the decision. Just because some western politicians also viewed the guy as a good fit for the role doesn’t prove they affected the events in any way.
BTW, President of Ukraine has way more executive power than the PM. As the immediate result of the revolution, Turchynov became the acting president. He received way more political power than Yatsenyuk, yet the unknown people speaking on the leaked call never mentioned his name.
No, I think the people of these regions should have been allowed to decide their own fate, which then should be internationally recognized. This is, of course, impossible now because the war means that the demographics have shifted substantially and irreversibly. But this would have at least been a viable path forward in 2014. The problem is that nobody wants this sort of democracy unless they like the answer they're going to get.
Like imagine if in 2020 the January 6th rioters had somehow managed to overthrow the government and get Trump in office again. It would seem, to me, perfectly reasonable for e.g. California to then say 'No thank you.' and refuse to acknowledge his authority. That probably would have led to a civil war but if you're asking what I think - it's that people in such scenarios (which, granted, are not so easy to define) ought be allowed to decide their own fate.
All Ukrainian regions have voted for Ukrainian independence in the 1991 referendum. All the way until 2014 there wasn't actually any relevant pro-independence movement in Crimea or Donbas, until the Russian soldiers showed up, and dictated the course of events, of course.
How about if trucks full of soldiers without uniform crossed the border from Mexico to go on a sunny vacation, and decided on the spur of the moment to help their new friends out by imposing martial law and holding sham elections and shooting down airliners?
> No, I think the people of these regions should have been allowed to decide their own fate, which then should be internationally recognized.
This means that Russia needs to go back to its border and free and fair elections need to be held, in accordance with the country’s constitution. Right? You realise that Russia leaving the country is a pre-requisite for the people to vote freely? Unless you count what we’ve seen in Crimea, in the Donbas and in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts as somehow free and fair. You know, when the ballot boxes were brought to each house by armed Russian soldiers with tanks on the streets.
> But this would have at least been a viable path forward in 2014.
2014 was when Putin put everything in motion, having spent the previous years setting it up. If you think that anything reasonable could happen under Yanukovich, well, you were not paying attention.
