Sorry, I meant Turchynov. I've looked at the wiki article on the timeline, which says that the separatists initially took control of an armoury of the SBU.
An internal issue that doesn't warrant a foreign nation invading.
Secondly, if it was an internal affair, what are we doing sending weapons?
We weren't until, in case you missed it, RUSSIA INVADED A FOREIGN COUNTRY. Invading a foreign country changes it from a domestic issue to an international one.
At least Russia was supporting Russians.
If they were Russians, why were they trying to foment a revolt in Ukraine? If they don't like Ukraine, they should fuck off back to Russia. If they're Ukrainians (Russian-speaking or otherwise) then it's an internal Ukrainian matter. Either way, the appropriate response is not to send in Russian troops to a foreign country.
We aren't supporting Brits.
We are defending a neighbour and an ally who has been invaded. In the long-term, to a degree, we are arguably keeping an expansionist and militaristic Russia from NATO's borders - a conflict there would oblige us to commit troops, so tangentially we ARE preventing British deaths, but the primary motivation is to assist a beleaguered ally.
Your third point: we could say that Russia is responding, to use your word, to the prospect of 11 million Russians in Donbas and Crimea becoming part of an alliance that it is not itself part of.
You and Vladimir both need to decide whether you think these people are Russian or Ukrainian. If they're Russians and they don't like Ukraine they don't have to stay there. If they're Ukrainians then it's none of Russia's business.
It's also interesting that Crimea was illegally transferred to Ukraine in 1954, according to an inquiry in 2015.
An inquiry by whom? That would have been the administrative action by the Soviet government when it was a single state. The territory of Ukraine as it stands at the moment is a result of the agreements made at the dissolution of the USSR, long after those events. Whether that was an 'illegal transfer' or not at that time isn't really relevant to the current situation. Calais was taken by force from England in 1558, I can't see that standing as a basis for sending in the tanks.
Even if any of those claims were slightly correct, the appropriate action is not to invade; it's to seek to impose sanctions, it's to call for supervised elections and negotiated separation. If Putin's worried about Ukraine moving towards NATO or the EU, forcing Ukraine to hold independence referenda or show themselves as not as democratically accountable as the EU would require is a better way of achieving that goal than military invasion.
You keep trying to come with these weaselly attempts at something that might, with a squint, look like a technically valid justification for military action if you didn't look too long at it with any eyes that actually worked. If these were actual reasons they would have been made clear either before the first invasion or before the second invasion, but they weren't. This is just a land-grab by a militaristic authoritarian who is losing power at home and needs a foreign war to stoke political fear and new resources to top up a failing economy.
You need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why you're so adamantly supporting such a blatantly corrupt regime's undeniably unjustifiable invasion of a neighbour. It doesn't speak well of you.
O.
