It's interesting to me how you say "war" here on an English speaking and mostly American website.
But what is the official Russian position on it? Can it be called a war there? It can but with repercussions. Why don't you use the official terms for it or would that not play over so well when trying to drum up support for what this really is. Aggressive Russian expansion.
The "peaceful" annexation of Crimea also came with Russian funding of separatist groups in eastern Ukraine and the shooting down of civilian aircraft. How peaceful is that?
Ive seen RT call it a war. When Russian propaganda calls it an "SMO" it's not because theyre allergic to the word "war" but because they legally didnt declare war.
This is not unusual. The US, for instance, didnt declare war on Iraq when it launched its unprovoked invasion.
>The "peaceful" annexation of Crimea also came with Russian funding of separatist groups in eastern Ukraine and the shooting down of civilian aircraft. How peaceful is that?
Not very, but neither was the Andrey Parubiy led terrorist attack from Hotel Ukraina which kicked off this civil war.
Kiev could have put him in prison for taking a sniper rifle to the top of the hotel and committing mass murder against peaceful protestors but instead he was elected to the Rada.
The Ukrainian war hero Nadia Savchenko who identified him - she is still, ironically, the only person to be convicted and imprisoned in relation to the terrorist attack which kicked off this civil war.
RT is a propaganda organization. They say war because it's intended for an English speaking audience. Notice I haven't said anything about Ukraine being or not being "perfect."
And the US didn't shy away from calling it a war in their media when talking to their own public.
RT is no more propaganda than CNN or any other Western mainstream media. It's just different people who set the narratives.
>And the US didn't shy away from calling it a war in their media when talking to their own public.
Once again, so called SMO is called war in Russia, just not in official documents and announcements, because juridically it's not a war, at least up to this day.
> I encourage you to read this
More whataboutism telling me the US is bad which is supposed to distract me from what Russia is doing.
It's probably illegal or is illegal? Be honest, does the Russian government arrest people for holding a sign that says "No War" or even signs that are blank? Pieces of paper that are blank?
RT using the term war for English speaking audiences is allowed because it is state sanctioned propaganda so you can come here and point to how they say it. Well, they also come here and pay people like Tim Pool to say things too that they won't say in Russia.
>Russian government arrest people for holding a sign that says "No War" or even signs that are blank?
Yep, but coz theyre protesting against the war not coz theyre calling it a war.
It's exactly like that time British police threatened protestors in London with arrest for holding up a blank sign. They were threatened with arrest for the expression of their implied beliefs as well, at precisely a time that the government was feeling overly sensitive.
There are certain specific things that can happen in most countries that really bring out the authoritatian side of the government.
How can you protest something that's not officially happening? It's just an SMO after all. Honestly you and all your bot account friends should just go crawl back into whatever kremlin gutter you came out of.
>But what is the official Russian position on it? Can it be called a war there?
Of course it can and is called war in Russia. You just missing the point: war is a juridical term. Technically neither Russia nor Ukraine are in war with each other. That's why officially it's called "Special Military Operation", and in Ukraine it was for years "Antiterrorists Operation", and recently rebranded as "armed aggression of Russian Federation against Ukraine sovereignty".
>The "peaceful" annexation of Crimea also came with Russian funding of separatist groups in eastern Ukraine and the shooting down of civilian aircraft. How peaceful is that?
Your should learn some history and geography. Crimea is a peninsula in Black Sea, majority of population are ethnic Russians. Russian special forces entered Crimea after the coup in Kiev, and peacefully blocked Ukrainian military there and let referendum happen, so it was annexed. Most of Ukrainian soldiers stayed in Crimea and were from Crimea, got Russian citizenship just like all the other population. Those who refused were peacefully allowed to return to Ukrainian territory.
Donbas is an Eastern region of Ukraine. First of all, how coup in Kiev happened? Ukrainian nationalists, driven by the idea of Ukraine dropping sovereignty and joining EU and NATO, attacked multiple military and police headquarters, got armed, entered Kiev, and after several weeks of riots in the capital that ended with mass shooting there, managed to force elected President of Ukraine and his government to flee. If you're unaware, this president was installed mostly by people in the Eastern Ukraine, opposing to previous one, that was voted in by Western part of Ukraine. So, basically, Western oligarchs (Ukraine during its 30+ years of independence was ruled by several oligarch clans originating from either Western (agricultural) or Eastern (industrial) part of Ukraine), their nationalists backed by USA embassy and Viki Nuland herself seized power in Ukraine. So Donbas with some help from remaining Eastern oligarchs started the uprising in Donetsk and Lughansk, and declared, that they want their rights for their language, religion etc be preserved (Most of Eastern Ukraine population are ethnic Russians and basically was part of Russia until 1922 or so, when Lenin gifted this territory and people to Ukrainian SSR). These people also started to raid police and military bases, got armed. So, coup government in Ukraine, instead of talking to these people, announced "antiterrorists operation" and moved army to get Donbass under control, and they started from bombing Lughansk. That's basically how it turned to war.
As to civilian plane, it was shot down many weeks after direct confrontation started, and it's up to this day very arguable who actually shot it down, as the court in Netherlands turned this case into the same farce as investigation of Nord Stream sabotage, where they were using only facts that suits their version, and ignored everything, that didn't fit the picture.
I'm not missing the point at all and I know the difference between Crimea and other parts of Ukraine.
So let me make sure I understand your story perfectly. Russia was so concerned about Ukrainian sovereignty that they sent their military into Crimea. And instead of allowing Crimea to exist as a sovereign state with what Russia viewed as the rightful president/government of Ukraine... it instead annexed it and said this is Russia now?
Quite interesting. It's almost as if Russia didn't care about the "integrity" of the elections and just wanted more land for itself.
>So let me make sure I understand your story perfectly. Russia was so concerned about Ukrainian sovereignty that they sent their military into Crimea.
Not really. Russian military was already in Crimea. If you're unaware, Sevastopol is a major Russian fleet base since 18th century, and both marines and regular soldiers were stationed there based on signed agreement with Ukraine government.
>And instead of allowing Crimea to exist as a sovereign state with what Russia viewed as the rightful president/government of Ukraine... it instead annexed it and said this is Russia now?
Those people, who Nuland and K installed as government of Ukraine after the coup were declaring as their political goal to kick Russia out of Crimea, broke the 50 years long deal and turn Sevastopol to a NATO fleet base. So yes, as soon as they were installed and declared by the West as the legitimate government of Ukraine, Putin annexed Crimea, to create a territorial dispute, that will not allow NATO to legally accept Ukraine.
>Quite interesting. It's almost as if Russia didn't care about the "integrity" of the elections and just wanted more land for itself.
Another interesting fact to you: Crimea was an Autonomous Republic, and it actually tried to separate from Ukraine in the 90's to rejoin Russia by referendum, but Kiev government sent troops there and rewrote Crimean constitution to prevent any separation.
They had a lease at, and were restricted to a specific military base there.
They were definitely not "in the Crimea", in terms of the peninsula at large, as you are perfectly aware. To suggest, in response to someone pointing out the 2014 invasion, that it's "not really" an invasion because they were "already in the Crimea" -- is just weird semantic head games.
But what is the official Russian position on it? Can it be called a war there? It can but with repercussions. Why don't you use the official terms for it or would that not play over so well when trying to drum up support for what this really is. Aggressive Russian expansion.
The "peaceful" annexation of Crimea also came with Russian funding of separatist groups in eastern Ukraine and the shooting down of civilian aircraft. How peaceful is that?