Firebird wrote:What is so bad about "Russian peacekeeping troops" being stationed to prevent the slaughter of civillians?
I can't really think of much.
The legitimate president of Ukraine is still Yanukovych and he requested Russia protect his citizens against forces loyal to the junta.
That wasn't specific to Crimea AFAIK, and is still in effect.
Too much discourse, even Russian-centric discourse, seems to accept the NATO groupthink which somehow ascribes legitimacy/normalcy to the Kiev junta.
There is zero reason any Ukrainian citizen should submit to armed forces of an illegal junta that is in bed with open fascists,
certainly not when the coup has already destroyed the constitution and continued to break laws, e.g. use of military vs. ukrainians,
as well as ongoing political repression and violence vs. opposition. When fascists are allowed to break all laws like that then all bets are off.
The Novorussian armed forces are not "rebels" vs the (legitimate) "government", they are antagonists to a junta which has seized power.
NATO and their pet junta were the ones who destroyed the sovereign Ukrainian constitutional order,
and that when they had the Feb 21 agreement in hand, i.e. there was no plausible necessity for the coup beyond humoring the fascists.
The coup destroying the constitutional order left a legitimacy gap which other groups are 100% justified in standing up for their position.
The problem is not Russia's actions,
as Russia's diplomacy raising such issues while taking no other action for almost a week following the coup were just grossly ignored by the West.
Now the people trying to attack Russia for abstract legalisms (e.g. violating UKR sovereignty) while ignoring abstract legalism that cut against their own side (and the argument vs. Russia) are just 2-faced liars,
but what is sad is when people who believe they are opposing the NATO-junta end up going along with the NATO-junta premise, that the Kiev junta has ANY legitimacy at all.
A junta organizing an election does not change anything, because random armed groups cannot just declare elections and legitimately change the government on their terms and timetable.
The fact that ongoing military operations should normally require declaration of state of emergency, precluding elections, as well as other legal violations, are all just icing on the cake of illegitimacy.
That said, politics still matters, and "feelings" still matter... Even when legitimated by law, total force is not the ideal outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------
Did anybody see the Maidan-ist rationalization for the attack on (Novorussian controlled) Lugansk RSA?
Obviously they are feeling the guilt of their crimes, because otherwise they would just gleefully embrace the attack as their own,
but they are ridiculousy claiming it was the Novorussian's own attack, an attempted Igla attack on over-flying jet,
never mind an Igla couldn't do that much damage in that much area with that many impact craters, nevermind the footage of the jet launching rockets.