Comments by "Dylan Vogler" (@dylanvogler2165) on "UATV English" channel.

  1. 42
  2. 37
  3. 24
  4. 22
  5. 20
  6. 16
  7. 11
  8. 10
  9. 7
  10. 7
  11. 6
  12. 6
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 5
  16. 5
  17. 5
  18. 5
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26.  @DezorianGuy  I didn't call you a Putin puppet m8. That was about the OP. Not you. The difference between the two situations is that in one situation the native population (ethnic Albanians) tries to gain independence due to the actions of the central government. As Serbia was abolishing the Kosovarian autonomy and the way the Serb army reacted was disgusting. NATO intervened in this, illegally as Russia vetoed the resolution that would have legitimized interference. NATO made mistakes there, broke international law by not respecting Serbia's sovereignty as well as it's territorial integrity by detaching Kosovo from it. In the case of Ukraine, it is not the original natives of the region, the Crimean tatars in Crimea or the ethnic Ukrainians in Donbass, but the descendants of those that were settled there by the Russian Empire and USSR. Essentially colonialism. Doesn't mean that these people shouldn't have a voice? No. These people have rights too, but it is wrong that a population descendant form colonists decides the future of a region against the will of the natives. It would be like Australia joining the UK against the will of the aboriginals (whom also have to small a voice in Australian matters). Not to mention that there is reason to believe that Russia instigated the revolts in the East, as there have been reports of people showing up in Kharkiv demonstrating whom didn't even live there, nobody in the city knew the people. Not to mention that Russia directly annexing Crimea and turning the Donbass republics into puppets and using their people as canon fodder. Which is not the case with Kosovo. But situations are wrong and violations of international law and has to do with separatism, but that is about were the similarities end.
    4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50.  @bonsummers2657  the Russian story is a lie. Their imperialist all Russian nation, which states that Ukrainians and Belarusians are part of the Russian nation, is an outdated relic. Whilst Ukraine isn't Kyivan Rus' (neither is Russia btw) the origins of its statehood lie not in the Ukrainian People's Republic or the West Ukrainian People's Republic but in the Cossack Hetmenate of the 17th and 18th century. During these times there was already a clear distinction between those living in what is now Ukraine, called Ruthenians and later "little Russians" ,which is derogatory in modern use, by the Moscovites, and the Moscovites, later called "Greater Russians" by the Moscovites themselves. I think it is funny how most people, who say they know Ukrainian and Russian history, gloss over the Cossack Hetmenate so easily. Whilst many Ukrainian traditions and identity stems from this time. Even their predisposition towards democracy in contrast to Moscow's predisposition towards autocracy. As the leader of the Cossack Hetmenate, the Hetman, was voted into this position and not born into it. The fact that Ukraine or Russia are the continuation of the Kyivan Rus' is obviously bs. From both of them. They are both descended from it. Just like how France, the Netherlands and Germany all claim to be descended from the Frankish Empire. However it is also false to state that Ukraine as a state emerged only in the 20th century. It emerged as a seperate state identity, under a different name but with the same people, in the 17th. From the Russian, and Polish-Lithuanian perspective these lands were the borderlands. Which has given rise to the modern name instead of Ruthenia/Rus'. But we shouldn't forget that these lands were not always just borderlands and from a Rus' perspective they were their heartlands.
    2