Then you should support partioning Ukraine instead of the Ukrainian government since there's a lot of pro-Russian Ukrainians.
If the majority of another country's population voluntarily decides on a national partition, such as in Czechoslovakia post-communism, then it's none of my business.
But no such proposal is supported by the average Ukrainian. Among the Russian minority, perhaps, but ethnic minorities have no right to steal part of a country from its longstanding ethnic majority without their consent. Especially when said minority already has a country elsewhere.
Because they're denouncing their east Slavic Orthodox culture in favor of western neocolonial hegemony
Wrong. Ukrainians are still ethnically and linguistically Slavic, while many/most are still practitioners of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. And nothing about that will change if they join the EU and NATO.
Just like, say, Bulgaria.
What kind of friend overthrows a western neocolonial globohomo puppet government for you to bring you back home? Idk man, sounds like a terrible friend.
Ukraine held open presidential and parliamentary elections in 2014 (after the revolution, in which the main pro-Russia party was free to take part but stupidly chose to boycott it) and then again in 2019.
Which is to say that the current government in Kyiv was popularly and fairly elected by the Ukrainian public.
If the 2014 elections didn't completely legitimize the new government, then the 2019 elections did, as by that time the terms for all pre-revolution officials (such as Yanukovych) had expired.
Liberation from western neocolonialism.
Again, the Ukrainians didn't feel like they needed liberation from anything except Russia.
People were getting tired of the Soviet Union, times and attitudes change.
Then Russia should've put it to a vote.
Demand a second (and internationally monitored) referendum on Ukrainian independence from Russia, with the threat of violence if the Ukrainian government refused, coupled with a promise of absolute non-interference in Ukraine's sovereign affairs going forward if the second referendum proves continued support for an independent Ukraine.
But instead of a vote, they just invaded.
And that referendum was for independence, not a denouncement and cutting ties with Russia.
Not in 1991 perhaps, but the country's later track record demonstrated a popular will toward integration with the EU.
In February 2013, the Verkhovna Rada voted overwhelmingly (with 90% in favor) to take steps to implement the EU's "recommendations" for political reform as a condition for ratifying the EU Association Agreement.
A few short weeks after this, the Yanukovych government passed a plan to further promote Ukraine's integration with the EU. The process only stalled when the government proved unwilling to release Yulia Tymoshenko, a political prisoner.
Had the EU been willing to let that one issue slide, I suppose Ukraine would be an EU member state today. But my point is that the country clearly wished for closer ties with Europe, and that even Yanukovych had apparently wanted as much too.
Ukraine is fine being independent if they stick with Russia instead of sucking up to the west.
Russia's friends are almost all dictators. Not a good deal for the average citizen of these countries. "Sticking with Russia" sucks booty and the Ukrainians had every right to reject that.
Russia wasn't a colonial power.
In that case, neither was Britain, Spain, or France.
Even if Ukraine did voluntary associate itself with the west, that's just evidence of internalized colonialism and being coons.
In other words, if the Ukrainians chose any partner besides Russia, that was proof of them being brainwashed so their choice had to be taken from them so they'd choose the "right" way?
Wow. No wonder Russia's neighbors dislike Russia. The country feels entitled to own them forever, free will be damned.
And why is popular sovereignty important?
Because that's the basis of international law? Because without that, there'd be nothing but constant wars of aggression even in the 21st century?
Attitudes change with time, and people can be misled.
If that happens, then people will eventually get smart and elect better leaders. But if people are "misled" into a bad dictatorship, they can never undo their mistake.
Your staunch support of democracy and demand to enforce it on the whole world just shows your snobbish northwestern Anglo-Germanic supremacist attitudes.
The idea that people of all races and skin colors should be allowed and empowered to choose the governments over them is racist?
And if they have no such right, then why was Western colonialism wrong? Does the ethnic background of your tyrannical overlords really matter?
