Comments by "turquoisestones" (@turquisestones) on "Interviews from Ukraine"
channel.
-
The first guy mentioned ATO and said that the Russians took their lands back in 2014. Well, the Ukrainians have been successfully brainwashed by their government on this one, but sooner or later, they and the whole of Europe will have to recognize a simple fact: the "Revolution of Dignity" that took place in Kyiv in February 2014 was a gross violation of the Constitution of Ukraine, when the LEGALLY elected president—who had been recognized as such by ALL nations of the world—was ILLEGALLY removed from office without even an impeachment process being initiated, despite this being the constitutional requirement.
Revolution is never provided for in the Constitution of Ukraine as a legitimate means of changing state power—the word "revolution" is found nowhere in the Constitution. Therefore, those who came to power in Kyiv by unconstitutional means had no legitimate right to exercise control over any regions that refused to submit to the new illegal authorities in Kyiv. Donbas was exactly such a region.
The acting president, Turchynov, however, decided in April 2014 to gain control over Donbas by force, launching the so-called "Anti-Terrorist Operation" (ATO)—a military campaign that involved shelling the region and killing thousands of civilians. This is how the war began—the very war that continues to this day. It was the first occasion when innocent blood was shed by the official army of one of the sides.
As for Russia, it launched its Special Military Operation (SMO) in 2022, when it had become clear that Kyiv was not going to abandon its plan to gain control of Donbas by military means. On the contrary, it was only preparing for a large-scale counteroffensive—with NATO’s support. By that point, it was evident that the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements had been nothing more than Western ploys to buy time—something that both Merkel, Hollande, and Zelensky themselves later admitted.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IljaHordist "The war started when Putin's thugs attacked Ukrainian public institution"
- Please, be correct in your wording: those were not "Ukrainian public institutions", but rather "Donbass public institutions" because the state of Ukraine that used to have Donbass as one of its consitutencies had already collapsed by that time - an unconstitutional change of state power had already occurred in Kiev in February 2014 through a revolution (while the Ukrainian Constitution forbids any kinds of revolution) and new people came to the state power illegally, that is, by violating the Constitution. According to the Constitution of Ukraine, article 5 (if I recall well), usurping the state power is a gross political crime. So, as per the Constitution of Ukraine, those new authorities in Kiev were criminals and had no legal constitutional rights to exercise control over any region of Ukraine. Besides, supporting them would have meant supporting the violators of the Constitution. This is why Donbass and Crimea declared their refusal to submit to the new authorities in Kiev, highlighting the collapse of the state.
However, neither those who you call "Putin's thugs" (who were, by the way, in no way the Russian army) killed anyone in Donbass, nor did they ever appear in Donbass prior to the revolution in Kiev. Their appearance in Donbass became only possible after the criminals in Kiev had carried out the unconstitutional change of state power, revolution, supported by the West. Nor did those "thugs" ever attack Kiev. But it was exactly the unconstitutional authorities in Kiev who started the "Anti-Terrorist Operation" against Donbass in April 2014 by deploying the army to the region and commencing shelling. This was when the first loses of lives among civillians took place at the hands of an army acting at the directives openly announced by its government. That was the starting point of the war.
"...remained moderate, instead of, for example, doing to the Donbass what your beloved Russia did to Chechnya"
- You call shelling that killed, with a minimum count, no less than ten thousand of civillians 'moderate'?! Hmm... Besides, you seem to forget how many ethnic Russians in the southern regions of Russia had been kidnapped by the Chechens, brought to Chechnya and turned into slaves in the years following the collapse of the USSR and leading up to the First Chechen War. Did Donbass ever turn any Ukrainians into slaves?
And yes, you forget the most crucial point: prior to the Chechen declaration of independence on 6 September 1991, and unlike in Kiev in 2014, there had been no coup that resulted in the illegal change of state power in the Russian Federation rendering Russia's Constitution of no power. Yeltsin was still a legally-elected President of Russian Federation and the Constitution of Russia, adopted back in 1978, according to which Chechnya was an integral part of Russian Federation, was still in effect.
1
-
1
-
@IljaHordist Thank you for bringing up those points. You brought up quite many and even though you have accused me of "avoiding the topic", which I never did, I will try to first focus only on the points from your first paragraph. And after we finish with these, we can go further.
"The reigning government's way to power being disputed doesn't end the existence of the entire country, which dismisses your entire first passage"
- Well, first of all, that was not just "the way being disputed". That was an act of declaration from Donbass of their refusal to submit the new authorities in Kiev, which in the eyes of Donbass were not merely "disputed", but were the outright violators of the Ukrainian Constitution.
Secondly, you said it "doesn't end the existence of the entire country". Allow me to ask you, how do you determine whether a country exists or doesn't exist anymore? What rule or what measuring stick do you follow here? I was in Donbass in those days. I remember how local people were excited and how they were saying happily, "Now we are no longer a part of Ukraine! Now we'll be a separate republic!" Just like locals in Crimea were happily saying, "Now, finally, we will be Russia again!" At least in their eyes the state of Ukraine that was defined in the Ukrainian Constitution had already stopped existing in February 2014. Now you, please, show me clearly why they were supposed to follow your view instead and not theirs.
"Even if you consider the government illegal, it doesn't change the fact that Ukraine still existed"
- To be more precise, the question here is not if Ukraine still existed - Ukraine, in fact, exists even today - the question is in what boundaries it still existed. One could say a very valid point: it is just the fact (which even you cannot deny) that after the revolution took place in February 2014, Kiev lost its control over Crimea and Donbass. If so, then if you still keep insisting that the state of Ukraine still existed, you should at least admit that it was not that state, which was defined in the Constitution of Ukraine, according to which Donbass was an integral part of Ukraine. In other words, the state of Ukraine still existed, but it no longer existed in Donbass and Crimea. And if you yet insist that Ukraine still existed even in Donbass and Crimea, then you are not talking about the facts anymore, but rather are abiding in some virtual reality that only exists in your imagination but doesn't reflect the actual state of things.
"...Donbass and all public institutions there were still a part of it"
- Well, the validity of this assertion hinges on the earlier one. If you can prove the validity of the first one, that is, that the state of Ukraine still existed in the territories of Donbass that refused to submit to Kiev, then this one will also be automatically proven.
"And even if someone were to follow your insane logic that the Ukrainian government being illegal gives someone the right to attack Ukrainian territory and public institutions"
- You seem to have misread me. When did I say that Ukrainian government being illegal gave someone right to attack Ukrainian territory and public institutions? Please, don't put words into my mouth.
"...the so-called "separatists" should have ceased their actions the moment Ukraine got an undisputably legal government again by election"
- This statement of yours made me smile a bit because it begs two unavoidable questions. Firstly, according to which law do you think they were supposed to cease their actions? Please, provide any legal law that would oblige those "separatists" to do that. Show me such a law, which would state something like “In case a revolution takes place in your country, you are to refrain from any form of unsubmittance to the government that has become as such as a result of revolution, and you are to wait till the next election, instead”.
Secondly, do you realize that the early election that was announced by the illegal governmet was also illegal because even if Yanukovich had run away from the country (which he actually never did), the Parliament had no right to go back to the previous version of the Constitution and appoint the speaker to be the Acting President? Incidently, it was exactly the Acting President who a few days later ordered the troops to be deployed in Donbass and shelling to be commenced. In other words, he was the one who started the war.
1
-
1
-
@ReYDeR2k "...там были обынче военные действия, а не какая-то особенная агресия со стороны ВСУ. Какие еще тебе факты нужны?"
- Я разве запрашивал какие-то факты?! Вы изначально задались здесь вопросом: "как можно верить больше новостям, чем близким людям?", и всё, что я сделал, это просто обратил тот же самый вопрос к вам, а не запросил какие-то факты. Разговор шёл не о фактах, а о вере в ту или иную трактовку тех самых фактов. И ваши комментарии показывают, что вы подвержены именно одной определённой вере в одну определённую трактовку фактов. В данном случае вы подвержены вере в то, что у Киева в лице ВСУ и под лидерством Турчинова были все права на начало, по вашим словам и по словам Пригожина, "обычных боевых действий" против тех, кого вы назвали "террористами" на Донбассе.
Но факт состоит в том, что те "террористы" никого из местных не убивали, а местные стали терять свои жизни именно тогда, когда Турчинов объявил АТО и ВСУ двинулись по его приказу на Донбасс. Именно так и началась эта война, которая длится и по сей день. Также фактом является и то, что у Турчинова не было никаких конституционных прав на подобные действия. Это просто-напросто объективный факт, что Турчинов стал и.о. Президента в результате произошедшей революции в Киеве, которая называется "Революцией достоинства". Также фактом является и то, что Конституция Украины запрещает любые революции. Факт и то, что Рада перешла к прежней версии Конституции самовольно - без подписи Президента, как того требовала та же самая Конституция. И это также объективный факт, что по прежней версии Конституции - вне зависимости, сбежал ли куда Янукович или временно пропал без вести - и.о. Президента страны должен был автоматически стать премьер-министр Украины (Азаров), а в случае неимения такового
(Азаров к тому времени уже ушёл в отставку) заместитель премьера, то бишь Арбузов. Иными словами, Рада назначила своего спикера Турчинова и.о. Президента страны в обход и в нарушение Конституции, захватив всю полноту гос. власти в свои руки. И это также объективный факт, что в соответствии с той же Конституцией захват гос. власти неконституционным путём является государственным преступлением. Таким образом, с момента объявления Радой Турчинова исполняющим обязанности Президента страны ни один регион Украины не обязан был подчиняться ему, так как по Конституции и он, и те, кто привёл его к власти, являлись преступниками той же самой Конституции. И именно это и сделало возможным появление и осуществление своих действий на Донбассе тех, кого вы называете террористами. А до революции в Киеве никаких таких "террористов" на Донбассе не было - это тоже факт. Иными словами, к началу войны, к массовой гибели людей, привело не "внезапное незаконное появление на Донбассе террористов", а произошедшее в Киеве антиконституционное преступление, называемое революцией, которая и спровоцировала подобные действия на Донбассе, и которую по своему лицемерию и всеми руками поддержал Запад, и сторонников которой поддерживаете и вы.
1