Comments by "turquoisestones" (@turquisestones) on "Professor Gerdes Explains 🇺🇦 "
channel.
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
"The only sensible thing for Europeans to do is to dismantle the Russian Federation"
- :) :) :) Guys, you won't be able to dismantle my country Russia. It is just impossible. Especially now. Don't just take my word for it. Just learn some history and see that whoever tried to do that, eventually failed, and failed badly. However, if you don't want to have further problems with Russia, then start with yourselves:
Firstly, admit that the bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999 without the approval of the UN Security Council, which all of you in the West were so much supportive of, was a blatant act of violation of international law, as well as the UN charter. That was when you lost Russia's credibility. And yet you have continued to expand NATO, the violator of international law, eastwards - even despite Russia's concerns that were voiced by Russia so many times!
Secondly, admit that the current war in Ukraine is nothing less than the war between Russia and the criminal NATO. Admit that this war started not one year ago, but already nine years ago when the "Revolution of Dignity" took place in Kyiv while the Constitution of Ukraine forbids any revolutions. It was because of this unconstitutional change of state power that Donbas (East of Russia) refused to submit to Kyiv, after which the acting President of Ukraine Turchinov then deployed troops in Donbas starting shelling the region killing thousands of civilians.
And if you continue your hypocrisy in the way indoctrinating your peoples in the West through mass media about the "unprovoked invasion by Russia" then don't expect things to become any better - it will all be becoming only worse and worse.
2
-
2
-
2
-
This war started in April 2014. This was the point when the first blood was shed by the official army of one of the two conflicting sides and when that side officially said that that was the right thing to do. A little earlier, in February 2014, an unconstitutional change of the state power took place in Kyiv, which they now call the "Revolution of Dignity". A legally elected President of Ukraine, which had been recognized as such by absolutely all the world powers, was declared by the Ukrainian Parliament against his will and without even initiating impeachment against him - as is required by the Ukrainian Constitution - as "no longer in office". Consequently, the Parliament switched to the previous version of the Constitution - without a signature of the President as, again, required by the Constitution - and, thus, illegally appointed its speaker Turchinov as the acting President of Ukraine.
Since all of that was a blatant act of violation of the Constitution of Ukraine, no region of Ukraine afterward had an obligation to submit to the new and illegal authorities in Kyiv. And that's exactly what Donbas and Crimea did - they declared their unsubmitting to the illegal authorities in Kyev, which was nothing else than a declaration of their independence. This was already the collapse of the state of Ukraine into four entities: the Republic of Crimea, the Luhansk Republic, the Donetsk Republic, and the rest of the pre-revolution Ukraine, that is, the territories that were still under Kyiv's control. And if you want to take a more legalistic way, than you can say that the collapse of the state had taken place even earlier, that is, on the day the Ukrainian Parliament had illegally declared the President "out of office" and illegally appointed the new acting President.
I would especially want to stress this point here because in the West it is now deliberately "blurred out" in the mass media and is preferred not to be discussed as it doesn't fit their popular narrative about "Russia's unprovoked war". It is very funny how the Ukrainian Constitution is never mentioned in the West since February 2014, that is, when the unconstitutional change of state power, took place in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the very crux of the matter is hidden here, as well as the very key to the understanding of the mind of Russia and the mind of the pro-Russian majority of ethnic Russians living in Luhansk and Donetsk (collectively referred to as "Donbas"). The thing is, in their eyes the Constitution of a state is the very and the only definition of that state. No other legal document, agreement, declaration, etc., and not even the fact of recognition by other states, has any defining authority for the state than the Constitution of that state. The only definition of the state of Ukraine that Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea had signed up for was the Constitution of Ukraine. Constitution is simply an agreement and a set of major principles, according to which all the constituencies that are signing it agree to coexist together peacefully as one state. And it was exactly this agreement that was violated in Kyiv. According to that agreement, in the State of Ukraine, the legally-elected President BY DEFINITION could only be removed from his office against his will by impeachment and IN NO WAY using a revolution. Thus, if the revolution has taken place and the President was removed by unconstitutional means, in their eyes that state (that was defined in the Constitution) has therefore stopped existing. You may go ahead and rant about "recognition by the UN members" but it means nothing to them. What matters to them is that the agreement was broken, and not by them, and therefore they are free from that agreement and from now on can exist as independent states - even if they are not recognized by any other state. And they are right in that - you won't find any such law in this world that would say something like "in case of a revolution, all constituencies of the State of Ukraine are obliged to submit to the new authorities that became as such as a result of the revolution".
And the acting president Turchinov in April 2014 decided to submit to Donbas by deploying troops in Donbas and by starting shelling the region, thus killing hundreds of civilians there. This was the first blood in this conflict and that was how this war started and has been lasting even until now. I understand that the Western media prefer not to mention this anymore as it doesn't support the narrative that "Russia all of the sudden attacked Ukraine in 2022", but in those days both CNN and BBC were reporting on those events extensively enough to get at least a glimpse of the picture of what was going on in Donbas in those days. It is very important to note that it was not Donbas that started shelling Kyiv first, but the other way around. Kyiv started this war and this war has been going on until now.
2
-
We Russians hate you for your hypocrisy. You promised us not to expand NATO eastwards, and yet that's exactly what you've been doing since the collapse of the USSR. You've been teaching us democracy and principles of international law back in 90's when we were trusting you, yet you were the first to violate the international law in 1999 when you began to bomb Yugoslavia without the approval of UN security council and in 2003, when you invaded Iraq on a fake reason of weapons of mass destruction. And what do you mean by saying "we didn't even think about you at that time"? Bother to check how many of your companies were getting oil, precious stones and lumber in Russia for a song and moved all of that to the West! Luckily, Putin stopped all of that when he came to power. We also hate you for hypocritically supporting the unconstitutional change of state power in 2014, the "Resolution of Dignity", and for not reporting in your media that Ukrainian Constitution forbade any revolutions. We hate you for supporting the illegal Kiev regime when in April 2014 it started shelling Donbass, killing thousands of ethnic Russians in the region, which is how this war started. We hate you for promoting the idea in your media that this war started in 2022 - as if there had been no war going prior to that, that is, since April 2014. We also hate you for promoting gay propaganda to children and, thus, destroying families.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @Riviera1777 "They can't force sth that is a part of their own country"
- Well, and yet they did. Check the history. Yes, they did - by using army and dropping bombs on civilians in Donbass, killing innocent people. That happened back in April 2014, when Turchinov, then acting president (illegal, by the way), launched what he called then "Anti -Terrorist Operation". This was, in fact, how this war started, the one that has been going on until today.
By that time Kiev had already lost any legal right to exercise any control over any region of Ukraine. Moreover, Crimea and Donbass had already announced that they were not going to submit to the unconstitutional authorities in Kiev. Turchinov, the speaker of the Parliament, was appointed as an acting president based on the version of the Constitution that the Parliament had returned to illegally because it was done without the signature of the President as both versions of the Constitution require. According to the previous version the Prime Minister was supposed to be appointed as an acting president, not the speaker of the Parliament.
And prior to that, the Parliament had adopted illegal resolution on removal of the legally-elected President (that had been recognized as such by the whole world). The resolution was illegal because, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, the President of the country could have been removed only by 3/4's of the members of the Parliament voting in favor of removal, but they didn't reach 3/4's and adopted that resolution by simple majority, instead. Moreover, the Constitution required that voting take place at the conclusion of the impeachment process, but the impeachment had not even been initiated!
In a nutshell, the Constitution of the state of Ukraine that defined that state as the one, in which the state power could only be changed by the Constitutional means (Article 111) and not by any revolution, was violated. And those who came to power did so by that very violation. According to the Constitution (Article 5), they were considered state criminals for usurping state power through the violation of the Constitution. Naturally, regions that disagreed with them had every right to refuse submission. The Constitution does not contain any clause stating something like "all regions must submit to the winning side in the event of a revolution." In fact, submitting to the illegal authorities would have amounted to supporting their crimes.
So, all in all, the head of the state was changed against the very law that defined that state, after which regions de-facto announced their independence. This was de-facto a collapse of the state.
1
-
"Why did Russia invade Ukraine?" If you truly seek a direct answer, you should first understand what a loaded question is. If I asked you, "Why do you smoke?", you wouldn't be able to respond with a stright "I smoke because..." answer if you have never smoked. The same logic applies here—no matter how crazy it may sound, Russia, in fact, never invaded Ukraine.
Here's the breakdown:
1) The legally elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, who was recognized as such by the entire world, was illegally removed from office in violation of Ukraine's very own constitution. He was ousted without impeachment, which was the only constitutional way to remove him. Thus, the new authorities came to power through a coup or a revolution (as they themselves call it), neither of which is a legally recognized method for a transfer of power under Ukraine's constitution. This, in effect, marked the collapse of the very state of Ukraine as defined in the Constitution.
2) Naturally, some regions of this now former state refused to accept the new authorities. These were Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk, all of which consequently declared their independence from Kyiv.
3) Kyiv attempted to gain control of these regions by military force. It didn't dare to do so in Crimea due to Russia’s swift intervention following the coup, but it did launch military action against Luhansk and Donetsk. In April 2014, acting President Oleksandr Turchynov ordered shelling in these regions, killing thousands of civilians. This was, in fact, how this current war began—because it marked the first instance of bloodshed caused by the official army of one of the sides. Subsequent presidents, Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky, simply continued this policy.
4) By 2022, it had become clear that Kyiv’s regime had no intention of stopping its efforts to bring Luhansk and Donetsk under its control by military means. Instead, it was actively rearming itself with Western support (NATO). In response, Russia recognized Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states and then sent its troops into those territories.
5) Conclusion: If Russia has ever "invaded" any states in this conflict, it was Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk—all of which had already declared independence from Ukraine following the unconstitutional revolution in Kyiv, which had effectively dissolved the legal state of Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @paulgudedeberitz2335 "I understand that this is what you have been told in Russia, but it is not historically correct"
- :) :) :) For you information, I've already been living for 20 years outside of Russia. And all I have been doing through all these years is comparing western propoganda to the Russian one. In fact, most of what was happening in Ukraine within the last ten years I have been observing more through the Western media as where I live (in Asia) I have more access to the Western media then to the Russin ones.
"this video seems to be a truthful account of the Donbas situation"
- You really made me "admire" you! :) You give me a link to a talking head that most likely has never even been in Donbas showing some book that was urgently written by Ukrainian authors and only in Ukrainian language and you already say "seems to be truthful account about Donbass". Are you really that gulliable? Well, I have friends and relatives living in Donbass. Some of them came to Russia back in 2014, and some came just recently. Besides I had visited them in Donbas many times before the "Revolution of Dignity" and once, shortly, right after it. No one needs to tell me the "right situation of Donbas" because I saw everything with my own eyes. However, don't take my word for it. You can simply consider one small undeniable fact - there has never been any local uprising in Donbas against the Russian forces in it, and, on the contrary, there was a huge local resistance to those who had been sent by Turchinov from Kyev to "re-submit" Donbas. If there were any such local uprising against Russian forces or even some kind of Russian influence, rest assured that BBC or CNN right away would have reported that. However, they failed to find any despite desperately looking for such ones then in Donbas. All I remember is CNN report, in which one woman in Donbass was saying that she felt calm and protected thanks to the quickly formed local army in Donbas ready to protect them from possible attack from Kyiv.
Now back to that talking head in the link you gave me. He simply lied saying that people in Donbas were then very poor. People there were neither poorer than other Ukrainians in other regions, nor richer. He also lied about "passports issued in Donbas not being treated in the same way as in Russia proper". Many of my friends and relatives from Donbas have no problems using their passports in Russia proper. I've already left my comment there and I asked the author of that video to provide proof to this claim of his.
And, of course, he didn't say the most important thing: whatever happened in Donbas, legal or illegal, was a direct consequence of the illegal change of state power that had taken place in Kiev in February 2014 as a result of the "Revolution of Dignity," while the Ukrainian Constitution forbids any kind of revolution. Those who came to power were, in fact, criminals because they had usurped state power through unconstitutional means. After that, the new authorities in Kyiv, specifically the acting president Turchinov, had no legal right over Donbas. However, it was Turchinov who ordered tanks to go to Donbas, and the shelling of Donbas was ordered by Turchinov, too.
And yes, there were no Russian troops in Donbas before the "Revolution of Dignity", not even Girkin and his people; it all became possible only after the unconstitutional change of state power in Kiev in February
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First of all, this is a war time in Russia. It is absolutely normal to do these things for any country in a state of war. I am sure there were similar things in the USA during Vietnam war. And I wonder why this "Professor" doesn't say anything about similar things happening right now in Ukraine? Try to show up right now in Kiev with something like "Zelensky is lying to us about this war!" written on your shirt and see how long your freedom will last then.
Secondly, what's wrong if Russia is trying to restore its might? Isn't it like any country in this world is trying to be stronger and more prosperous. And, most interestingly, if Russia is doing it, what does it have to do with you? You better worry about your own country.
Thirdly, she DID spread the lies about Russian army, which is currently a crime in Russia according to Russia's laws. It was neither 1000, nor 400 people. Kiev has failed to provide evidence for even a hundred. And it had such evidence, rest assured you would have seen a footage all 100 dead bodies long time ago.
Fourthly, before the start of special military operation there were many "artists" who drew similar pictures like this "Love is..." and they were not thrown into prison for that.
Fifthly, I wonder why so much attention to Russia? Why not, say, Saudi Arabia where people can easily lose their hand for stealing an apple in the market place? Why not bitch about that? Double standards? :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Professor", USSR existed not only during Lenin and Stalin's time, which was the most turbulent time in the whole world (WWI and WWII, after all). However, there were a lot of good and glorious things which we Russians had in the USSR after Stalin's death and which we had never regained since the break up of the USSR in 1991. Just one small example: USSR was the first country to fly into space. Right after the collapse of USSR in 1991 the West had a perfect opportunity to show us "the right way to live". Instead, you only sucked all resources from us during Yeltsin's time and didn't do anything good for Russia. Finally, when you violated the international law in 1999 by bombing Yugoslavia, we understood your hypocritical nature. Anyway, there were a lot of good and glorious things in the USSR that I personally still miss. And, as the matter of fact, what does it have to do with you? Honestly, this is our own celebration day that we observe in our own homeland. It's altogether our business that has nothing to do with you. Why would you be so concerned? Mind your own business, please. For example, the state debt of the USA, which is already more than 33 trillions, while Putin's Russia has been able to pay back all its debts.
1