Liberal Forum

DeezerShoove » 54 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

54 minutes ago

Kiev is actually older than Russia by a long shot. So it depends what timeframe you need to go back to in order to support one view versus another. 30+ years, 1200 years, 1600 years.
So the upstart Russia wants to claim "some farmland" based on conditions releasing that vassal state a few decades ago? How convenient. However, things changed since 1990. oops...

It took Russia long enough to come up with this reasoning. Wasn't this started because ethnic Russians were being brutalized? In a state that we now know didn't exist? I smell propaganda.

It's a legal argument - not "propaganda." When you find yourself calling anything and everything one side says "propaganda," you become part of the problem. You make matters ireeconcilable, since language is no longer language but a dirty word instead. Nothing is left but sticks and stones, once you fromally reject language as a means to end a war. 

Russia DID raise the issue AT THE TIME that Coupkraine broke the Big Treaty of Friendship (Russia's formal recognition of Ukraine's sovereignty based on Ukraine obeying the treaty - which treaty incorporated the pledges made in the Declaration of Independence). In response to Coupkraine breaking the treaty, Russia took Crimea and began to back the separatists in the oblasts which did not agree with the coup. 

Waht you need to understand is that when a coup takes place, not everyone is going to recognize the coup. Some will remain loyal. 

In the case of Coupkraine, remaining loyal was a no-brainer, because the first thing the coup government did was to outlaw the languages of minority Ukrainians. That's a problem for people, having their language outlawed. 

As to Kiev being the original capital of the Rus, that is correct. But the Rus moved their capital. So what?