[late]

I dont know if we can cover the whole time for sure, but yeah we know the USA clearly controlled the coup in 2014, we know that the USA immediately started pumping weapons and other military support into Ukraine, stopped by a short time by Obama (who told us we cant win in Ukraine) but restarted by Trump (who after all got constant pressure because people claimed he would be a russian agent), and we know that Ukraine can only keep going right now because the USA pumps enormous amounts of money into the country, right now at about 150 billion and counting. So the proposition that Ukraine doesn't completely depend upon the USA right now is simply ridiculous.

Both sides, the West and Russia, were both trying to mold Ukraine to their liking. You keep trying to ignore all the Russian dirty tricks. Naughty, naughty...

Last thing Russia wants is a successful free market economy to make them look bad. Putin wants Ukraine weak and corrupt.

You also said Ukraine wasn't sovereign. Which is ironic, since it was Putin's war crimes that forged Ukraine's national identity in fire.

Everyone knows Ukraine is dependent on the West, get real (not that you can). If you want an example of a country that isn't sovereign, thanks to Putin, look at poor Belarus...

[Deutschmania]

There's no indication that there's a "popular consent" (majority approval presumably) for secession in any of the regions of Ukraine, to the contrary.

But for the sake of the argument let's assume the regions of Ukraine have the right to secede, a right you think should exist. It would not be legitimate for those regions to join a political entity where the right to secede does not exist (aka Russia). It would be like voting to abolish the right to vote. It may be legitimate for the individual to deny a fundamental right to himself, but not to the minority who disagrees or to all future generations.

A 2014 referendum in the region found strong support among residents for secession from Ukraine, and a national presidential election in the spring was marred by obstruction and in some cases violence in the breakaway east, as clashes continued.

Later, Ukraine's government decided to grant the separatist regions self-rule and give the militants amnesty, though the move stopped short of declaring the regions fully independent. It was a major concession from the government, though some separatists said it didn't go far enough. On-again, off-again fighting continued even as both sides agreed on a cease-fire. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/22/1082345068/why-luhansk-and-donetsk-are-key-to-understanding-the-latest-escalation-in-ukrain

And even if , for the sake of argument, Russia doesn't recognize a right to secede , in regards to say Chechnya , the Soviet Union , in its constitution sure did. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shevarnadze-resigns-texts/law-on-secession-from-the-ussr/ , https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons03.html This just leaves two other analogous points that I wish to make , in respects to the United States of America , and its history. In 1954 , Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea to Ukraine. Before that , it had been Russian territory , and even since then has had a predominantly Russian population in terms of nationality. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/02/27/283481587/crimea-a-gift-to-ukraine-becomes-a-political-flash-point I think that this was similar to how Pres. Andrew Jackson deeded the northern peninsula to Michigan. https://www.hollandsentinel.com/story/news/history/2022/08/05/ever-heard-michigan-ohio-war-true-story-how-michigan-gained-upper-peninsula/10180297002/ In both cases , at the time , the people of both of the respective republics, or states, were citizens of the same united country. Now imagine a scenario where the U.S.A. were to disintegrate and the people of the upper peninsula were to want to join themselves to a now independent Wisconsin . This would be similar to the relationship of the Donbass region to Russia , after the fall of the Soviet Union. And in addition the exact same scenario to the one you gave, regarding the right to secede and then consent to be annexed by another nation that doesn't recognize n unilateral right to secession , actually did play out it respects to the Republic of Texas , which had originally been a Mexican state. Is Texas then not now a legitimate state of the U.S. , given that as it pertains to the Civil War , its supposed right to leave the Union, and join together with a number of other states to form the Confederacy wasn't recognized ? https://americanhistory.si.edu/price-of-freedom/mexican-war/texas-independence , https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/ , https://www.fff.org/2014/04/23/what-about-the-u-s-annexation-of-mexico/

[Rugoz]

A 2014 referendum in the region found strong support among residents for secession from Ukraine, and a national presidential election in the spring was marred by obstruction and in some cases violence in the breakaway east, as clashes continued.

A fake referendum organized by a gangster regime at gunpoint. We have surveys on what people in those regions think (or rather thought) that are 1000x more credible.

And even if , for the sake of argument, Russia doesn't recognize a right to secede , in regards to say Chechnya , the Soviet Union , in its constitution sure did. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shevarnadze-resigns-texts/law-on-secession-from-the-ussr/

It says that law was introduced in 1990. As a consequence, Ukraine overwhelmingly voted for independence (all regions within Ukraine did).

I don't know what you're trying to say here. That the regions within Ukraine ceded rights in the process? No, they were not republics in the SU.

Now imagine a scenario where the U.S.A. were to disintegrate and the people of the upper peninsula were to want to join themselves to a now independent Wisconsin . This would be similar to the relationship of the Donbass region to Russia , after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Yes, apart from the fact that the people in the Donbass didn't want to be a part of Russia, but what about it?

And in addition the exact same scenario to the one you gave, regarding the right to secede and then consent to be annexed by another nation that doesn't recognize n unilateral right to secession , actually did play out it respects to the Republic of Texas , which had originally been a Mexican state. Is Texas then not now a legitimate state of the U.S. , given that as it pertains to the Civil War , its supposed right to leave the Union, and join together with a number of other states to form the Confederacy wasn't recognized ?

I think at the time it was widely believed that states could secede if they wanted.

The civil war proved that wrong, obviously. But I think we can agree that abolishing slavery is more important that popular consent.

[Potemkin]

I think at the time it was widely believed that states could secede if they wanted.

In fact, opinion was divided on the issue at the time. Broadly speaking, the Southern states thought that states had the legal right to secede, and the Northern states thought that they didn’t. This disagreement is what led to the Civil War, in fact.

The civil war proved that wrong, obviously.

The North won the legal ‘argument’ by winning the Civil War. Glad to see that you agree with Chairman Mao that “power grows from the barrel of a gun”. Lol.

But I think we can agree that abolishing slavery is more important that popular consent.

We can agree on that now, but people back then couldn’t. Hence the Civil War.

[Rich]

But for the sake of the argument let's assume the regions of Ukraine have the right to secede, a right you think should exist. It would not be legitimate for those regions to join a political entity where the right to secede does not exist (aka Russia). It would be like voting to abolish the right to vote. It may be legitimate for the individual to deny a fundamental right to himself, but not to the minority who disagrees or to all future generations.

Ah so according to your logic, the people of Puerto Rico have no right to make Puerto Rico a state. Hawaii, Alaska had no right to become states. In fact none of the territories had the right to become States after the Civil War.

[Rugoz]

Ah so according to your logic, the people of Puerto Rico have no right to make Puerto Rico a state. Hawaii, Alaska had no right to become states. In fact none of the territories had the right to become States after the Civil War.

If you believe in the right to popular consent, as Deutschmania presumably does, no, Puerto Rico cannot legitimately join a political entity where that right is non-existent.

Needless to say that's not how contemporary international law works.

[Potemkin]

If you believe in the right to popular consent, as Deutschmania presumably does, no, Puerto Rico cannot legitimately join a political entity where that right is non-existent.

Needless to say that's not how contemporary international law works.

It’s not how reality works, @Rugoz.

[Rugoz]

It’s not how reality works, @Rugoz.

Oh look, you got 2 likes from stupid people.

You either adhere to the principle of consent or not. If other considerations are more important, fair enough, but don't pretend to be principled.

[Potemkin]

Oh look, you got 2 likes from stupid people.

You either adhere to the principle of consent or not. If other considerations are more important, fair enough, but don't pretend to be principled.

You can’t just invent your own parallel reality and then talk and act as though it’s true and you didn’t just make it up. That’s the mistake the South made during the American Civil War, until reality (in the form of the North’s armies) brought them back into line. Reality can be defined as that thing which doesn’t go away even when you ignore it.

[Rugoz]

You can’t just invent your own parallel reality and then talk and act as though it’s true and you didn’t just make it up. That’s the mistake the South made during the American Civil War, until reality (in the form of the North’s armies) brought them back into line. Reality can be defined as that thing which doesn’t go away even when you ignore it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

It's really simple. If you are a democrat, you cannot possibly think a vote to abolish the right to vote is legitimate, since the the latter precedes the former. I invented nothing, it's basic common sense.

[Potemkin]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

It's really simple. If you are a democrat, you cannot possibly think a vote to abolish the right to vote is legitimate, since the the latter precedes the former. I invented nothing, it's basic common sense.

When a nation-state is formed, that process of formation must be irreversible, otherwise it is not a nation-state. Before the Civil War, Americans would say, “The United States are…”, but after the Civil War they would say, “The United States is…”. The difference was that the USA had gone from a loose federation of states to a single nation-state, after the irreversibility of the Union had been demonstrated once and for all by the Civil War. This is the reality of the formation of nation-states, @Rugoz. You can fantasise that it should be otherwise, but you would just be deluding yourself.

[noemon]

There's no indication that there's a "popular consent" (majority approval presumably) for secession in any of the regions of Ukraine, to the contrary....

Yes, apart from the fact that the people in the Donbass didn't want to be a part of Russia, but what about it?
...

You brought a Ukranian study that showed beyond any doubt that the majority of the people of the Donbass(54%) do not want to be governed by Kiev and about 90% of all of them want political devolution from Kiev. They would rather become part of Russia or a separate state aligned to Russia or a fully autonomous region aligned to Russia as the Minsk accords and Putin himself have suggested several times over the years. Somehow you even went as far as to suggest that the autonomists who have been rendered as "criminals" by the Ukranian government were actually representative of supporting Kiev instead of Moscow. Because only such nonsense turn the numbers.

Yet here you are, openly lying about the studies as well as the concept of popular consent with nonsense that does not actually fool anybody, not even those you like to cite as "agreeing with you".