• 420blazeit69 [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.

    So if all Puerto Ricans unanimously decide to declare independence and the U.S. says "nah," they're just supposed to live with that? How is that just? You even acknowledge that's the path to a revolution or civil war, which we can both agree is a terrible option. What right does any country have to impose its will (through violence, of course) on a unified region that wants to leave?

    Once a region declares independence, why does it have to fight with one arm behind its back? Isn't it free to seek out allies, as all warring countries have done throughout history?

    Should the American Colonies have declared independence? Should they have sought the help of France to even the odds against their much stronger opponent?

    • reddwarf@feddit.nl
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like I said, voting for or wanting a separation does not guarantee you get what you desire.

      It’s up to a country to determine how and if secession is possible. If the people of the complete country disagree with this separation the it will not happen and should not happen. Are the rest of a country any less of a factor? It is their country after all.

      Discussing other situations specifically is tricky here. The formation of the US for example is incredibly difficult. Where did it start? The French, British or the colonist who formed the current country?

      In the case we are discussing we have to deal with country as-is, the Ukraine as a whole. If secession is wanted then this region has to follow the rules and possibilities of Ukraine. iI’m not privy to these tbh.

      What is not acceptable is invading that country and start killing people. Masquerading an election as valid while invading that country is not an option to consider as fair or legitimate.