We didn’t use to call it war, so you’re wrong about that.
We used the term “intervention” to describe limited military action. Countries throughout history have conducted interventions as opposed to full-scale war.
Russia’s assault on Ukraine isn’t an intervention and is instead a war and we know this because of the size and scale of the operation but also the intentions of the operation, which, are to take over the entire country of Ukraine.
If Lybian forces were on the verge of committing war crimes and killing thousands, then "intervention" would be an appropriate word to describe what the Western powers did. They "intervened" to prevent an imminent atrocity, if you believe them.
And I am inclined to believe them, not because of what Western governments have said, but because the whole Arab Spring played out in real time on social media.
I agree that what happened to Gaddafi himself was horrific. It would have been a much better thing if he had been arrested and brought before a tribunal. But he was killed by Libyans, who were angry about the Libyans that Gaddafi himself had killed. The contribution that Western Governments made to those events was to stop the killing of thousands of people who opposed the regime. Arguing against intervention is arguing in favor of what would have happened without intervention—which is, effectively, what we have seen in Syria.
Now, was Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the verge of murdering tens of thousands? Were Ukranian forces gathered, ready to rain artillery shells down on a major Ukrainian city? If not, I don't think it would be appropriate to describe the Russian invasion as an "intervention". What would Putin have been "intervening" in? Ukranian self-determination?
> But he was killed by Libyans, who were angry about the Libyans that Gaddafi himself had killed.
Sorry, I suggest you dig deeper. He was killed by Misrata fighters who were directly NATO sponsored and equipped. There were lots of articles on how NATO supported Misrata at the time.
Misrata is in Libya, no? Were the people who captured and killed Gaddafi not Libyans?
Are you saying that these people were working under orders from NATO? What was their motivation, if they were not fundamentally angry about how Gaddafi had treated their fellow countrymen?
> Are you saying that these people were working under orders from NATO? What was their motivation, if they were not fundamentally angry about how Gaddafi had treated their fellow countrymen?
Yes, there were under orders from NATO. They even coordinated air-strikes. This is no real surprise to anyone. Hell, I think some of the NATO generals even complimented the coordination. Can dig that up if needed.
Anger at a nation's leader does not justify NATO intervention. Most of these rebels were quick to take Libya back to the barbaric ages where women were treated as cattle. Libya also became an ISIS HQ. No one talks about human rights violations after Gadaffi was kicked out and tens of thousands killed. Media attention became nil at that point. Of-course NATO nations pat themselves on the back - hey we took out the bad guys. So what if our "good guys" kill 10x more ?
I find the hypocrisy and justification used for NATO wars utterly sickening.
A Russian puppet was overthrown by a revolution of the people, and replaced by a democratically-elected president, followed by multiple successful elections, and the peaceful transfer of power from one party to another, over nearly a decade, and Russian apologists call it a "coup".
A significant fraction of Ukraine voted for him - esp from the south and east. Toppling an elected government whose election was deemed valid by a vetted group of international observers is what split Ukraine and finally led to this bloody situation today.
And if you think the U.S. was not involved, I am afraid that is a extraordinary act of burying your head in the sand. The U.S. was involved even in the earlier Orange revolution in 2004. At that time, the U.S. media was not as sophisticated as it was later. The Guardian and US papers proudly declared the US combating Russian influence and "protecting democracy" by sponsoring protestors! Ukraine was always a tug of war between U.S. and Russian influence but 2014 coup was what broke the Camel's back.
Remember - Nuland is even on record discussing who should hold the reigns after the coup. She didn't want Klitschko in the central government. Too moderate for her. She wanted the Anti-Russian and far-right guy Arseniy Yatsenyuk in power.
And Lo and Behold - Her Prophecy Was Fulfilled! In an interview with Poroshenko, he admitted that Nuland was in Kiev during the time of the Maidan protests. She traveled 3 times during that period, organizing support and supplies for the "democratic movement" - even going to the extent of giving sandwiches to protestors.
Unless Reuters is "naked Russian propaganda" now, there was definitely an uptick in kinetic activity in the Donbas, with most of it falling on the Separatist side of the line of control.
Russia has given each and every excuse that you could possibly come up with in 2014 and again in 2022. If you're a defense industry consultant I'd expect you to be more than conversant with the run-up to the second episode of this war and not to swallow such things hook, line and sinker.
Note that nowhere in that article does it say that the Ukrainian side did that. For all we know this was a provocation, as Russia is won't to do. Alternative explanations have been present many times and none of them have stuck.
Also note that there was an endless build-up prior to the second phase of this invasion which had absolutely nothing to do with that particular incident even if it was done by the Ukrainian side, which I highly doubt given the fact that it was one of the pretexts used.
Finally: in that region there have been many actions by either side and no matter what: the Ukrainians are well within their right to kick out an invader, the myth of the separatists has been debunked solidly, until the little green men showed up there was no meaningful separatist activity.
> Note that nowhere in that article does it say that the Ukrainian side did that. For all we know this was a provocation
If you are asserting that the Helsinki-based OSCE was duped by Russia detonating a bunch of explosions on their own side of the line of control....prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The extraordinary claim that Ukrainian shelling of positions in Donbas is why Russia invaded Ukraine is what requires extraordinary evidence. And we already know that claim is nonsense so spare me.
That there was a surge in numbers of explosions in East Ukraine is not Russian propaganda, everyone agrees it happened.
That the surge in shelling was Ukraine-initiated against Russian-backed separatists (and not vice versa coordinated from Moscow as part of the prelude to its own invasion)—and, even moreso, that even if it was, a Ukrainian offensive against separatists in Ukraine (and not even against the openly Russian-occupied part) was a reasonable basis for seeing a threat of NATO invading (or backing an invasion of) Russia—is the Russian propaganda.
"By February 24th, there was nothing out of the ordinary. Now the [Russian] Defense Ministry attempts to fool society, tries to fool the President, and tell the story of a crazy aggression from the Ukrainian side and they were going to attack us with the whole NATO block."
Not sure how you get more conclusive then that; Putin himself?
The only thing the OSCE documented in the article you cited was explosions in the region and a casualty in the government controlled areas from the attacks.
It does not support your (Russia’s, really) claim of a Ukraine-initiated escalation
On page 2, with the map of the Donbas, the vast majority of the explosions are in northwest Luhansk, NE of Luhansk city itself, and North of Donetsk....on the Separatist side of the line of contact.
We used to call this war. Is Russia just ‘intervening’ in Ukraine right now?