I suppose one could look at it that way, though I think we can agree that things really heated up from Euromaidan onwards. Also, that before Euromaidan, the main struggle was in Crimea. Donbass may have had its difference with Kyiv, but Donbass had been part of the Ukrainian S.S.R. a fair amount longer than Crimea and had less ethnic Russians as well, so there was less of a drive to distance itself from Ukraine following Ukraine's independence.
I'm curious, who do you think was behind most of the violence during Euromaidan? As to Putin invading Ukraine in February 2014, I think we can agree that its limited military actions at the time pale in comparison to its military actions at present. It was such a small operation that Putin initially denied he was even involved:
**
On 27 February, Russian troops[43] captured strategic sites across Crimea,[44][45] followed by the installation of the pro-Russian Aksyonov government in Crimea, the Crimean status referendum and the declaration of Crimea's independence on 16 March 2014.[46][47] Although Russia initially claimed their military was not involved in the events,[48] Putin later admitted that troops were deployed to "stand behind Crimea's self-defence forces".[49] Russia formally incorporated Crimea on 18 March 2014.[50][49]
**
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
I believe that only a few individuals died during these events. Compare this to the 14,000 Ukrainians killed in the War in Donbass following Euromaidan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Total_deaths
Have you considered the possibility that by annexing Crimea, Russia spared Crimea from such carnage?
You go on to claim that you have "no doubt that Putin secretly provided supplies and weapons to the insurrectionists." Yet Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud, who was actively searching for evidence of Russia doing just that found none:
**
In 2014, I am at NATO, responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we are trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels in order to see if Moscow is involved. The information that we receive then comes practically all from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” with the information from the OSCE: in spite of rather crude allegations, we do not observe any delivery of arms and materials Russian military.
**
Source:
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative | Scheerpost
He even goes on to explain his belief on how they had armed themselves:
**
The rebels are armed thanks to the defections of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units which cross over to the rebel side. As the Ukrainian failures progressed, the entire tank, artillery or anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what drives the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Accords.
**
Agreed, but that goes both ways. What do you think Euromaidan was, if not an insurrection against the Ukrainian government? In that particular case, the insurectionist forces were successful, and there have certainly been consequences- the civil war that followed, claiming 14,000 lives, and now Russia's military operation, which I believe has now claimed even more than that. I think we can agree that insurrections aren't always a bad thing- the trick is to look at the motivations of those behind them. From what I have seen, those behind the rebellions in eastern Ukraine had a lot better reasons than those behind Euromaidan.
No, but I'm sure that Russia would disagree as to the legality of the annexation. Ultimately, I think that Frank Herbert said it best when it comes to laws: "
Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?". Personally, I'm more interested in what Crimeans want. On that count, I think that Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett, who travelled to Crimea a few years after it Russia annexed it, did a great job of explaining their feelings on the matter:
Return to Russia: Crimeans tell the real story of the 2014 referendum and their lives since | mintpressnews.com
Do you have evidence for -that- assertion? My own take of Putin is that he thinks he is doing the right thing. I don't agree with he should have conscripted Russians into the war, but I -can- see the logic in deciding to help defend the Donbass republics and trying to stop them from their continued attacks on said republics. I also understand the reasoning behind his wish to create a land bridge between Russia and Crimea. Ukraine made the reasoning for this particularly apparent after it bombed the Crimean bridge.
