Comments by "turquoisestones" (@turquisestones) on "Why I Support Ukraine: And Why You Should Support Ukraine Too" video.

  1. " I also support personal Liberty and the right to choose your own destiny" - So then you must be supporting Donbas in their right to choose their destiny back in April 2014, when Kiev, in response to that, began to shell civillians in Donbas, which is how this war started.
    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
  3.  @CMB21497  "The people of Ukraine voted for a government committed to joining the EU" - So I guess you don't count Donbas among the people of Ukraine, right? After all, Donbas people didn't vote for that government. If so, then all the more they had the right to set up their own government and not submit to Kiev. And that's exactly what they did when they declared Luhansk and Donetsk Republics.
    1
  4. "when you see someone bombs a residential building or a maternity hospital or a kindergarten and says it's okay to do those things, you know this is a bad guy" - Perfect definition of a bad guy! That's exacly what Kiev did to Donbas in April 2014 and that's exactly what Russia has been against for all these years since that time, and that's exactly what Kiev has never given up on resuming, which is why Russia has finally decided to take the matters into her own hands.
    1
  5. I guess Russia then a good Samaritan. After all, if Russia didn't help Donbas, Kyev would have definitely continued shelling it.
    1
  6.  @AkenValle  Those neo-nazis who now are either in the government in Kiev or in the Parliament did. One of them, Alexey Goncharenko - he was organizing the preparation and the cosequent hurling of Molotovs into the windows of Profsojuzov building with those Russians inside - is still a member of the Parliament. One thing to note: the investigation has still not been conducted and the perpetrators are still at large.
    1
  7. So, Kiev than is a bully. Because it was Kiev who started bombing civillians in Donbas in April 2014, which is how this whole war started.
    1
  8. "In 2014, I was shocked that we the collective west let the enemy take Crimea" - Were you by any chance not also shocked by the fact that Crimeans were more than happy to join Russia and that, unlike in Donbass where Russian forces didn't show up at that time, there was not a bullet shot in Crimea and not a drop of blood shed?
    1