Yes I understand your point. I do think your post is formulated to support your confirmation bias.
Like the issues of Crimea and Nazis are different issues, it’s not clear to me why they are clumped together if you’re not using one of them in your conclusions.
Those have lower correlation than say “rise of Ukraine as independent successful country” and “Russia feels compelled to invade”. And to take it from Putins mouth, he said multiple times that Ukraine is not real country, and that thesis survived multiple iterations of his speeches over this year
When I read your post, to me it’s:
“Ukraine always had Nazis → therefore it’s was OK for Russia to save its minorities → they will hate being in Ukraine again, according to independent pollsters”
While my view is:
“Ukraine always had Nazis → what does it have to do with Russia invading the neighbor country multiple times without any provocation” and “are we sure that polls in the occupied and resettled territory are trustworthy?” and “referendums with a gun to a persons head are incredibly untrustworthy”
The question is not so much about “what’s okay” but why did they do what they did. How does the situation likely look from the Crimean perspective?
This is the kind of thing where hostile media bias comes into play. Given your involvement in the conflict for you “what’s okay” is very central. If you start by focusing on judging things as okay or not you will have a very hard time actually understanding the motivations of the involved stakeholders.
“Ukraine always had Nazis → what does it have to do with Russia invading the neighbor country multiple times without any provocation
“Ukraine always had Nazis” if you read my article, you would find that it points to things that actually changed. Nazis in Ukraine didn’t use to be powerful enough to get the people they look up to who did ethnic cleaning to be declared as folk heroes but that changed in 2015.
People didn’t prevent laws from being passed by injuring 100 people with a grenade in front of parliament pre-2015. Particularly laws about minority protection.
You aren’t engaging with the actual arguments I made.
Yes I understand your point. I do think your post is formulated to support your confirmation bias. Like the issues of Crimea and Nazis are different issues, it’s not clear to me why they are clumped together if you’re not using one of them in your conclusions.
Those have lower correlation than say “rise of Ukraine as independent successful country” and “Russia feels compelled to invade”. And to take it from Putins mouth, he said multiple times that Ukraine is not real country, and that thesis survived multiple iterations of his speeches over this year
When I read your post, to me it’s: “Ukraine always had Nazis → therefore it’s was OK for Russia to save its minorities → they will hate being in Ukraine again, according to independent pollsters”
While my view is: “Ukraine always had Nazis → what does it have to do with Russia invading the neighbor country multiple times without any provocation” and “are we sure that polls in the occupied and resettled territory are trustworthy?” and “referendums with a gun to a persons head are incredibly untrustworthy”
The question is not so much about “what’s okay” but why did they do what they did. How does the situation likely look from the Crimean perspective?
This is the kind of thing where hostile media bias comes into play. Given your involvement in the conflict for you “what’s okay” is very central. If you start by focusing on judging things as okay or not you will have a very hard time actually understanding the motivations of the involved stakeholders.
“Ukraine always had Nazis” if you read my article, you would find that it points to things that actually changed. Nazis in Ukraine didn’t use to be powerful enough to get the people they look up to who did ethnic cleaning to be declared as folk heroes but that changed in 2015.
People didn’t prevent laws from being passed by injuring 100 people with a grenade in front of parliament pre-2015. Particularly laws about minority protection.
You aren’t engaging with the actual arguments I made.