"Terrible Ukranian propaganda" Topic

Dal Gavan, how well do you know the chronology of events in Georgia?
The ethnic conflict between Georgians, Abkhazians and Ossetians has existed for centuries. Before joining Russia, these were three different states. These people have different identities, different languages and a long history of conflicts among themselves.
During the period of entry into Imperial Russia, any borders between these states were abolished. All these territories became formally part of one province. Any inter-ethnic conflicts were suppressed by the central government.
During the period of revolution and civil war (1920s), new nation-states were formed and national conflicts flared up with renewed vigor. Ethnic cleansing with the mass destruction of people on a national basis was a common occurrence.
Here is one example:
link

In the USSR, Abkhazia and part of Ossetia were administratively annexed to Georgia as autonomous republics (this was dictated by their geographical location and convenience of logistics). Naturally, there was no opportunity for the resumption of inter-ethnic clashes while the central government was strong.
With the collapse of the USSR, inter-ethnic massacre broke out again. Example:
link

Russian troops that have been in these territories since the times of the USSR were forced to enter into conflicts to protect the civilian population in the surrounding territories.
How do you see the coexistence of these peoples in a single state? This will again end in ethnic cleansing and massacres.
Abkhazians and Ossetians prefer to be under the protectorate of the Russian authorities, but not their ancient enemies – the Georgians. That's how their story went.
I will add – there are almost no ethnic Russians in these territories. But residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia now prefer to have Russian passports, but not Georgian ones.

Do you think that the appearance of foreign officials among the rebels with promises to immediately accept the "new Ukraine" into the European Union is not interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine and inspiration for the rebels? Imagine that during the recent riots in the United States, ambassadors and politicians from Russia and China would speak to the "rebels"? This is fine?

The nationalist rebels armed themselves. And much earlier than they did in the Donbass. The first armories and military units were captured in Western Ukraine in February 2014.

For Russia, the appearance of NATO military bases in Crimea was unacceptable. As a result of the military coup in Kyiv, it was necessary to act quickly. Of course it was a bad decision, but it was just an awkward reflection on the situation that had arisen. If all the agreements reached earlier had not been threatened, no one would have acted in this way.

G'day, Cuprum.

I don't much detail about Ossetia and Abkhazia. I believe that they paralleled the collapse of Yugoslavia, in so far as restarting the various ethnic conflicts and territorial claims. Are the inter-ethnic rivalries so strong that as independent states there would still be trouble, as between Serbia and Kosovo?

However, was being annexed into Russia any better, from their perspective? It's a serious question, mate. You say they prefer a Russian passport to a Georgian one. But refugee figures indicate a lot of them don't want Russian passports, either.

Do you think that the appearance of foreign officials among the rebels with promises to immediately accept the "new Ukraine" into the European Union is not interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine and inspiration for the rebels?

Foreign officials, perhaps ambassadors themselves, were probably watching and even talking to people in the crowd. That's SOP and every embassy would have had people observing and reporting back. That doesn't mean they were doing anything else other than observing. Where is the evidence they were helping incite the rebellion? Is the evidence merely that embassy staffers were present? Or talking to protestors? All of that is SOP and is not evidence that EU or NATO nationals were inciting the rebellion. I don't believe anyone was promising that the EU would "immediately accept the "new Ukraine" into the European Union". The Ukraine would still be screaming if the EU backed out of that promise, but it has never been mentioned (as far as I know). So logically there was no such promise, mate, which throws doubt on the rest of that explanation about the rebellion.

Imagine that during the recent riots in the United States, ambassadors and politicians from Russia and China would speak to the "rebels"? This is fine?

I have no doubt that it happened in the US and is happening in Paris now. Embassy staff from every embassy in Washington would have been observing and possibly even talking to the rioters, to get a sense of what was happening and why. PRC embassy staff have been identified taking photos at Luna New Year celebrations, as well. It's part of the job of embassy staff to do that. We've even had the PRC organise Chinese students here to demonstrate against a visit of the Dali Lama. Most Aussies found that offensive, but it was (barely) within acceptable behaviour for embassy staff.

For Russia, the appearance of NATO military bases in Crimea was unacceptable.

NATO bases in the Crimea would have been a stupid provocation, though some would see it otherwise and would probably push for it. Except NATO didn't have any bases in Ukrainian territory in 2014, because Ukraine was not a member of NATO. The only foreign bases I know of in Crimea in 2014 were Russian. Even now, after Russia has invaded Ukraine, there is a lot of opposition within some NATO countries to having Ukraine join NATO. To me "NATO bases in Crimea" justification for annexing the Crimea completely lacks veracity. It's just a poor excuse.

I'm not asking you accept everything, or anything, I said as being correct. I'm just asking you to think it all through because, frankly, some of your posts are starting to read as if they came straight out of Pravda.