Unroll: Ukraine is not a legitimate state. #DonbassLivesMatter

By Na'omi Allen
Mrs Allen is a disgruntled American veteran and this is her personal blog. She studies geopolitical phenomena, with a focus on countering contemporary Nazism.
 

Originally published on Twitter:

In a recent speech to the UN, Joe Biden condemned Russian mobilization to East Ukraine and called upcoming Donbass referendums a “sham”. Our President shamelessly ignores the plight of Donbass. He pretends that Putin is “needlessly” defending the Donbass, even tho Ukrainian forces were bombing the hell out of them. Does Donbass not have the right to defend themselves?

I am not asking rhetorically. I really want to know why our president @POTUS @JoeBiden doesn’t believe that Donbass has a right to defend themselves.

Putin doesn’t just have the moral high ground in the fight against modern day Nazis. He also has legal standing for Russia’s SMO to protect Donbass and Russian soil. By hindering their right to self-defense, it’s our country that is in violation of international law right now.

Originally published on Twitter:

Timothy Snyder proposes that Donbass referendums should be referred to as “obscenity” and “element of war crime.” But I call their right to self-determination a matter of survival for East Ukrainians. #DonbassLivesMatter

Since 2014, we have been told that the reason why Ukraine refuses to recognize any referendum held by Donbass, is because they were occupied by Russia. The consensus is that it is illegal for any type of voting to happen in occupied territory…

… because those people would be under the threat of violence and would not be voting their conscience. This is something I used to believe… until realized that Russia was *not* “occupying” the Donbass all these years.

The Rus Fed military didn’t even have a meaningful presence in Donbass until this year. But today… even with their troops being there, it still shouldn’t be considered a military occupation…

According to international law, “… territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.”

LDPR has not been placed under Rus Fed authority, or under the authority of the Russian military. LDPR leaders are in charge of their respective self-declared republics.

The Russian Federation is not hostile to these self-declared republics.

There is a Russian military presence, but it is there at the request of LDPR leaders. Russia’s boots on the ground there does not fit the legal definition of a military occupation.

If Professor Snyder were to look at the situation honestly, he would have to come to the same conclusion. Instead, he side-steps and claims that nobody should even try to argue the legality of a referendum. Of course… if they did, they would lose that legal argument.

He claims: We should not call it an “illegal” referendum, because doing so recognizes that a referendum is/will happen, and whatever happens should not be recognized as a referendum at all.

Rhetoric of Criminality: A persuasive argument that makes no sense and is not based on fact but convinces people of dumb shit. Aka, anything that comes out of Professor Snyder’s mouth lately.

An old argument that I haven’t seen raised this time around: They’d have to hold a referendum in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution, and what Donbass would be doing, doesn’t.

I used to believe this, too. Until I realized that Ukraine has not had a legitimate constitution since 2014.

Technically, Ukraine is no longer a legitimate state, and hasn’t been since the Euromaidan overthrew the government and illegally messed with their constitution (making changes to it, without holding a national referendum, which their former constitution required them to do).