Pro-Russians go on and on about how the U.S. is lying about several concepts in Ukraine, about how they have double standards about intervention, etc, etc. No one has articulately countered these statements, which is very easy to do. My response is:
"You're absolutely right. The United States is spitting out a lot of propaganda about the conflict in Ukraine. They absolutely engage in double standards practically every day. The point is: two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the U.S. does these things, does not mean that Russia gets to do those same things and you pro-Russians shouldn't call them out on it. You yourselves are practicing a double standard because when the U.S. does a certain action, you scream bloody murder 'Imperialism! Fascism!' But when Russia does the exact same fucking thing, there is deafening silence. You don't say anything. That shows that you're not actually against that certain action, you're just against it when it politically suits you."
The same thing can be said about pro-Ukrainians who are just blindly anti-Russian without even knowing specific reasons why, other than "Well, they're communists!" Pro-Ukrainians go on and on about how Russia is lying about several concepts in Ukraine, about how they have double standards about intervention, etc, etc. No one has articulately countered these statements, which is very easy to do. My response is:
"You're absolutely right. Russia is spitting out a lot of propaganda about the conflict in Ukraine. They absolutely engage in double standards practically every day. The point is: two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the Russia does these things, does not mean that the U.S. or Ukraine gets to do those same things and you pro-Ukrainians shouldn't call them out on it. You yourselves are practicing a double standard because when Russia does a certain action, you scream bloody murder 'Imperialism! Fascism!' But when the U.S. or Ukraine does the exact same fucking thing, there is deafening silence. You don't say anything. That shows that you're not actually against that certain action, you're just against it when it politically suits you."
Bam. No comeback is possible. I am simply observing statements from both sides of the conflict. What people fail to realize is that evil people who are wrong most of the time can say something completely correct other times. Just because a person is evil does mean they are evil all the time. There have been men who have been disgusting terrorists who kill women and children, and then turn around the next day and run a food pantry for poor people.
Okay, so now that we've cleared through the choking aura of propaganda, let's go through a few universal truths in the conflict to establish ground zero on understanding it.
- People have the right to defend themselves against government attacks. They have the right to overthrow their government if the government will not stop oppressing them and violating their human rights. Seem radical? Seem anarchist? Actually, it is in line with traditional American values, logic and reason, and human psychology. The Founding Fathers believed in this truth, because they believed they were justified in overthrowing the British rule of the American colonies because of their repression. Logic says that if person A, (the government), attacks person B, (the citizens), without provocation, to only gain an advantage over him, or to steal something from him, etc, then person B has the right to use force to defend himself against person A. He is not a radical or terrorist for doing so. Psychologically speaking, if you do not believe in this, then you are giving person A the green light, and everyone else like him, to mug and kill as many person Bs as they want, and person B can't do anything about it, otherwise, he's a terrorist. This is against human psychology, because we have a primal instinct to defend ourselves if being attacked by an aggressor.
The Russian narrative would say that no, the Ukrainian people did not have the right to overthrow him. They say that the Ukrainians would have to deal with Yanukovych's corruption and theft and murder. Do you see why their narrative is bullshit: "You deal with your leader, even though his oppresses and murders you. Why? Because he's our ally, and that's all that matters."
2. Countries do not have a right to invade other countries based on the pretext on protecting a minority from the invading country. First of all, there is no evidence that Russian minorities in Crimea were ever being persecuted by anyone. That demolishes that piece of Russian propaganda. If Russia truly believed this concept, then they would have to accept it universally, i.e. it doesn't matter who the actors are, the rule stays the same: If your minority is being persecuted in another country, you have a right to invade that country. That's how real laws work: it doesn't matter if a white person, black person, Asian, etc, commits theft. Theft is a crime no matter who does it.
But we know Russia, specifically Putin, would never, ever, accept this rule universally. He only accepts it when it benefits Russia. Say Turkey says "Hey, Russia is persecuting our Muslim brothers and sisters in Chechnya, (which by all accounts, except Russian, Russia is. Fucking look up all of the shit these brave people have to go through every God damn day before you call them terrorists). So we will invade Russia to protect them." Can you picture Putin saying "Yep, Turkey has that right. Go ahead, I won't do anything." FUCK NO HE WOULDN'T.
3. Ukraine has the right to use force to take back its territory from pro-Russian separatists. Russia cries that the Ukraine are "fascists who are using violence against un-armed protesters." I'm sorry, I don't care who you are or what weapons/lack of weapons you have. If you forcefully take over government buildings, you have become a combatant against the government. The minute you use force against something, you have authorized that something to use force against you in response. You cannot attack and then call foul when that something you attacked attacks you back. Can you imagine someone using that in any other situation? Like on the playground at school: Billy starts beating the shit out of Andrew for no reason, saying the entire time "Oh, you can't fight back Andrew, otherwise, you're a bully!"
I MEAN C'MON PEOPLE, WAKE THE FUCK UP AND FUCKING THINK! USE LOGIC! You have to be pretty God damn stupid, or stupidly pro-Russia to think that only pro-Russian people have the right to take over government buildings, shoot down helicopters, and ambush Ukrainian troops, and the Ukrainian people SHOULD JUST SIT THERE AND TAKE IT.
Imagine if a similar situation happened to Russia. Let's say the Chechen people started another revolt, took over Russian government buildings in Chechnya, shot down Russian helicopters, and ambushed Russian soldiers. Do you think Putin would say "Yep, the Chechens have the right to do that. I'm not going to do anything."
4. Countries do not have the right to make up a bunch of lies against a country, and then invade it, based on those lies. This goes in line with what I said earlier. The U.S. cannot make up a bunch of "intelligence" saying that Iraq has nuclear weapons, lie and say Saddam Hussein is working with al-Qaida, etc, and then invade the country on those false premises, and then set up a puppet government, stealing their natural resources, using it to flame a war it benefits from, etc, etc.
And just because the U.S. did that does NOT give Russia the right to make up "intelligence" that says Russian Crimeans are being persecuted, exaggerate the political views of the new Kiev government to benefit Russia, and then invade Crimea and send mercenaries into eastern Ukraine on those false premises.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Both are wrong, fascist acts of state terrorism.
5. The Kiev government is not automatically "illegitimate" just because it came to power in a coup. If you go by that rule, then that means George Washington's government was illegitimate because it came to power through force. That means any government that has ever come into being through a revolution, coup, rebellion, etc, is automatically and without question, illegitimate. The Kiev government will become legitimate if it has free and fair elections, which it is going to do in 2 days, despite all the pro-Russian separatists are trying to derail them.
Of course, Putin doesn't believe in this rule universally. If a government comes to power that happens to be pro-Russian, or that Putin believes he can benefit from it, then of course he will say that government is legitimate and that the people had the right to overthrow the previous government, etc. But if a government comes to power that happens to not be pro-Russian, or that Putin believes he can't benefit from it, then of course he will say that government is illegitimate and that the people did NOT have the right to overthrow the previous government.
In conclusion, this shows that world leaders rarely, if ever, stand for any of the positions, ideals, rights, concepts, etc, that they say they stand for. They only stand for those positions, ideals, rights, concepts, etc, ONLY if it benefits them. If it doesn't, then you see an incredible 180 degree spin on their view on it. This is not the right way to govern. People must stand for ideals, no matter who is involved. For example, I believe that every person, regardless of their race or their creed, has the right to defend themselves from an aggressive attacker in self-defense. World leaders only support that right to certain people when it benefits them; when it doesn't, they suddenly don't believe in that right for a certain people.
Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Ronald Reagen, Nicolas Sarkozy, Vladimir Putin, both George Bushs, Gordon Brown, Francois Hollande, Xi Jinping, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Hu Jintao, and many more, they're all FUCKING LIARS.
