If you think a state like Texas should be able to secede from the union but a state like Donbas should not, you have a very significant inconsistency in your world view.
Discussion
Universal right of self-determination
100%
I might think and feel differently if the call to secede followed Texas being invaded and controlled my Mexico.
So would it matter if first Texas fought an 8 year war of independence because the US violated it's own agreement of autonomy with Texas, Texas was 90% "ethnically Mexican" and voted overwhelmingly to be part of Mexico?
If Texas had been shelled by the US military for 8 years before said invasion? If say a president had won our election and say the EU started a political coup here 8 years ago and over turned a certified election and installed their own personal choice for the US POTUS? Might you see this "invasion" by Mexico differently if all that happened.
And then say if 90% of the state of Texas voted to leave and become part of Mexico? Oh yea and Texas had already seceded 8 years earlier?
Because this is the exact situation in Ukraine right now.
I hear you. And before that the Soviet Union pulled the same move China has with Tibet and Xinjian, moving Russians into Ukraine to establish control.
I’m substantially with you. My point is not that it’s complicated but it’s a mess. In the end, power is what will decide this. No one is willing to talk.
Donbas is historically part of Russia, they didn't move in Russians they were already there. You don't get an area that size to 92% by moving them in. Ukraine was literally created as a state by the USSR. Khrushchev made the decision to attach Donbas and Crimea to it.
Ukraine wasn't even a country until the early 1900s at all. It was historically part of Romina and part of Poland and parts were at times unclaimed territory. The word Ukraine itself means "borderland".
The entire mess today is more of what happens when people draw lines on a map to suit their own goals. Why did Khrushchev make Crimea part of Ukraine for instance? Well since it was all the USSR anyway and since Khrushchev was from Ukraine and wanted to retire in Ukraine he attached Crimea to Ukraine.
If you look at the world anywhere we have a lot of warfare some fuckers some where played with borders outside of where they naturally fell along cultures and common beliefs.
The entire mid east, the Korean and Vietnam peninsulas, Eastern Europe, etc. It is almost like changing borders to suit the agenda of people outside of them is a bad idea or something. Kind of seems like three assholes (Rosevelt, Churchill and Stalin) divvying up half the world 70 years ago is still fucking the world over today.
It’s more than people changing the border to suit them. What suits them is instability, e.g. Iraq where they divide the populations so there is a large Sunni minority whose interests will align with the western powers and will want western help after they are put in power.
But that is what the Soviets did, they didn't move people in they moved the Russian borders back and did so for exactly the reason you just gave.
The point is Donbas was always part of Russia it was not colonized. by Russia. As to Crimea though it was part of the strategy but again the real reason and documented as such was Khrushchev's retirement plan.
I’ve been thinking about your post.
First, I appreciate a busy guy like you taking time to respond to a rando boatface like me.
I’m not ignorant of the history in and around Ukraine but I think you’re better schooled than I am. With that said, I find Russia’s actions in, Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia, etc. to call into question the freedom of the Donbas request for independence/secession.
Also, even if the mainstream narrative is spot on, our bottomless support of Ukraine is at least unsettling.
I should be able to secede.
Let everyone secede! … please?
I wish being right was enough to convince people. Unfortunately I feel as if you're just casting pearls before swine.