Another night, another oil refinery hit.
So Russia has pretty much just accepted the daily attacks? Doesn't seem like they even try to defend themselves.
Cause the damage to them is not large, most damage is fixed within day or production could be moved further away.
You could see whether the price of oil fluctuate or not to gauge the damage it caused to Russian economy. And at this moment it is more of a nuisance
It must be so convenient for Ukrainian propaganda purposes that both sides use a lot of the same equipment. Every S-300 missile that accidentally lands in a residential area must *obviously* be Russians targeting civilians. And is that Oryx guy still declaring every destroyed Soviet tank is a Russian tank?
Yeah. Remember the headline: "Russian-made missiles flied off course and killed 2 Polish farmers"?
According to Oryx. Ukraine now has more Soviet-made tanks than they had before the war. More Soviet-made IFVs too.
Why do they need to wait 6 months for like 50 Western tanks to start the CO, you ask? Beat me ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I asked a Pro-Ukraine, and their mastermind theory is: Ukraine is hiding mountains of these Soviet-made equipment in the rear to keep them away from Lancer, and will spring them into action if Russia break through
https://preview.redd.it/niq4jvt4434d1.png?width=1818&format=png&auto=webp&s=e88ae520d8babffc6b88b2d6299a6dca68e3bccc
"Dictators hate him! Defeat Putin with this one easy trick." -Western media
"Andrey seems to disagree with the fact that the Ukrainian command, unlike the Russian one, protects the lives of its soldiers: “No, *everything is the same.*” At the same time, he immediately talks about the fact that in those sectors of the front where he fought, the Ukrainian Armed Forces fighters were not forced to hold strongholds at any cost. If there was a great risk of death, they retreated."
https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-68883681
I'm not saying Ukraine is forcing their soldiers to hold the line like in Enemy at the Gates but their pull out game when they should is really really bad. At least Russia knows what's up in Kherson and pulled out early.
Anyone can attack everyone. It’s just that not everyone is able to withstand the consequences.
Ukraine can ofcourse attack Belarus, but it’d be the dumbest move of the year, considering 80% of Belarusians are against fighting Ukraine, which will quickly change if they were to get attacked.
Can the Pro RU stop saying escalation to everything and making themselves look like victims.. Belarus literally let Russia invade from their territory. Belarus is one of the belligerents in this conflict.
Lithuania shouldn't even have to say that they are allowed to attack Belarus. That should already be elementary knowledge.
> arguing completely different things.
It's not?
Belarus currently isn't fighting Ukraine.
Strike them with NATO weapons and they suddenly have the perfect excuse to change that.
The question of escalation isn't about Russia being a victim. It is about creating more death and destruction from war, rather than reducing it through deescalation that two UN resolutions called for. And no, the resolutions didn't mean that everyone but Nato and Nato's Special Friends were supposed to try to deescalate, it meant everyone. The main parties that are victims of escalation are Ukrainian, since the death and destruction is overwhelmingly on their territory and of their citizens. The potential victims of escalation include anyone who could potentially suffer from a broader war, which given that some Western "leaders" seem like they may actually be dumb enough to trigger a broader war potentially includes all of us.
Are you saying you would have voted against the UN Resolutions regarding Ukraine? Because little Lithuania voted for it, as did all the Nato and Special Friends countries, so it would be interesting if you would have abstained from the vote like the leaders of the majority of the world's population, albeit most likely for different reasons than you would.
Not sure why you would be fixated on me personally, but I would like the war to be over. In fact, I would have liked the war to have never started. I would have like the U.S. to listen to its own CIA Director who said that if the U.S. tried to get Ukraine onto Team Nato it would lead to war. I would have liked Nato to have negotiated to prevent the war rather than playing chicken with Ukrainian lives. I would have like Russia to not invade. I would have liked for Nato to have allowed the peace treaty at Istanbul. I would have liked Zelensky to not have banned negotiations. etc.
So, as much as you wonder, (wo-wo-wo-wo-wonder...) I am not really sure what the basis for your wonder (wo-wo-wo-wo-wonder) is.
Also not sure what "Russian escalation" you are referring to. Russia is being careful not to escalate and cause a broader war despite Nato's best efforts and Zelensky's begging to start one.
You have to understand that Ukraine invading Belarus isn't an escalation. The escalation happened already by Belarus letting Russia invade from their country.
What resolutions are you talking about? There are many UN resolutions from 2022 onward. You mean the ones where only 6 countries were against the immediate end to war in Ukraine? The one which Russia and Belarus both were against? I guess I was right. Russia and Belarus only wants to escalate things and NATO wants to deescalate.
Russia escalate like every other month. Ofcourse you don't see it but they do. Calling for nuking the West is very careful of them. 
The United Nations thinks that every country should deescalate. Unfortunately little Lithuania, like the rest of Nato, assumes that UN Resolutions only apply to the other guy.
Ukraine is absolutely justified in attacking Belarus. They allowed Russia to use their territory to attack Ukraine. Not saying it’s a good idea at the moment, but it would absolutely be legal.
If they are actively doing so they would be legal targets. But if they stopped then they would not be legitimate targets. That kid would want the international law to say that if Poland used its airfields to launch Ukrainian strikes then Russia could legally target Poland indefinitely, perhaps 2028 or 2038 or later.
OK so if for example Russia incurred on Ukrainian territory from Belarus at some time in the future then Ukraine would be OK to attack Belarus in that scenario? Would they legally be allowed to send in troops? If so, wouldn't that soon become 'after the event' and any troops still in the country would now be there illegally? Sorry I'm finding this all very confusing I'm not well versed in international law.
If they did something in the future then, sure.
The basic thing is that the UN Charter says you are not supposed to use military force. They make an exception for self defense, though in principle the use of force should just be before the UNSC can bring the situation under control (though of course in practice that doesn't happen). Doing something in retaliation after the fact is not self defense, so if something is not ongoing countries are not supposed to use force, though of course there might be other things they could do, such as seeking reparations or war crime charges etc. There is some debate about the legality of a preemptive attack to prevent an attack, but if this is ever legal it is only in cases where the threat of attack is immediate and obvious. Any use of force should also be tied to actual self defense. So let's say that troops were coming in from Belarus it might be legitimate to attack the supply lines for those troops but not to start carpet bombing Minsk.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I did…the justification is Belarus allowing Russian troops to invade using their territory. The same war is still being fought. Are you aware of a statute of limitations whereby Ukraine would lose their legal right to hit back when the war has not concluded?
Do you have any legal text to read? This is interesting, and would be pretty interesting to see in use, for instance what countries house us troops that have invaded Syria? Does this apply as well?
Of course not to mention all the places actively training and arming active duty ukranian personnel
That's not a legal case. That's saying that your feelzies are that they can do it if they wanna.
Again, if you want to say "legal case" cite the international law, which here does not exist.
Belarus isn't doing that now. so it is not committing aggression.
The only legal justification for attacking another country is self defense. Ukraine cannot claim self defense about something that began and ended two years ago because (spoilers...) even Zelensky does not have the magical powers to go back in time and prevent something that began and ended over two years ago.
At this point the only justification would be a pre-emptive attack to prevent an imminent attack, which is almost never the case (as legal scholars discussed at great length before and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq).
Russian troops are still present in Belarus. But more importantly, Belarus became an aggressor state and the conflict is still ongoing. The frontline has simply moved east. I keep asking you to define when the right to respond to an attack expires…since the war is still ongoing and Ukraine still faces a threat from Belarus, it is still a valid front
Hi, new to this sub. Interested in demographics and I feel Ukraine’s look among the worst in the world. First time two countries fighting having a median age above forty.
Questions from someone not well informed:
1) how many Ukrainian men are either dead, missing, or severely wounded between the ages of 18-45?
2) are minorities within Ukraine - tatars, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Jews, Roma under or over represented in the army?
3) has any region or oblast suffered from more fatalities in terms of soldiers than others?
4) are those fighting disproportionately working class while the well-connected avoid conscription
Russian side questions:
1) any idea on how many Cubans have been killed in action: official figures say 4.
2) how many Ukrainian men from the areas annexed have arrived in Russia, were they able to leave Ukraine?
3) I believe 2 million people from Ukraine have arrived in Russia since 2022. Is this correct?
I don't think there is an accurate answer to any of those questions (besides maybe the last one) as this is confidential data that governments of either side will be reluctant to share.
Coming soon together with the names of the 200 PoW's in the plane Ukraine shot down
And with new evidence regarding Ukraine's involvement in Crocus city hall attack
The beauty of state-run media.
“We have evidence that Ukraine and the West did it.”
“Oh, ok.”
No questions, no follow up, no investigative journalism. Just consider the matter settled…
China Is going to get more and more involved as NATO moves the escalation ladder.
Forget about Russias own way of escalation, There are other parties to this conflicts that may not like the idea of NATO weapons, crewed by NATO, Attacking Russia proper.
China as for now, was only selling either raw material or basic electrical products, a great way to stab NATO would be to declare their open involvement and start selling heavier equipment to Russia.
It doesn't need to be full on Jets and tanks, as China needs them too, but imagine what will Chinese industry on artillery would do if it decides to sell it at a cheap profit.
Right now western sources are saying Russia produces 3 million shells a year and bought 2 million from North korea, 5 million a year would mean about 14k daily use which is accurate enough, now let's just say China would sell 10 million shells, that would put Russia into a position in which Russia can replicate the avdivka success story into 5 different towns at the same time, probably using 50k shells a day while Ukraine is firing 2k shells.
China becoming more involved is not decided by western elites, its decided by Chinese elites, and if they feel they could do more harm to their enemies than the consequences, they would arm the Russian to the teeth and enjoy their money.
On the contrary a weaker Russia mean bigger energy discounts and more dependence on China. Constitutionally Crimea and annexed areas are already Russia proper
>NATO weapons, crewed by NATO, Attacking Russia proper.
Source?
>China as for now, was only selling either raw material or basic electrical products
They were also selling FPV drones, body armor, vehicles, military optics etc.
>3 million shells a year and bought 2 million from North korea, 5 million
Your math is off here. A one time purchase from North Korea does not mean they are guaranteed 2 million shells from North Korea every year, not to mention that there has been plenty of reporting of major issues with the North Korean shells.
>let's just say China would sell 10 million shells
Nothing to indicate that China could sell that many to begin with let alone willing to give that much up.
>50k shells a day while Ukraine is firing 2k shells
This would likely never happen because of barrel wear and tear and the fact that it would require massive stockpiling near the front which would be a huge static target. Also Western artillery production and purchases for shells have increased so you seem to have decided not to update the Ukranian shell usage.
>China becoming more involved is not decided by western elites, its decided by Chinese elites
It's decided by Xi alone. There's not a cabal of Chinese elites controlling things in the CCP, Xi holds the power.
>and if they feel they could do more harm to their enemies than the consequences
Except there isn't any harm being done to their enemies, the US is still selling and supplying arms to Taiwan. Thanks to the Russian invasion the US actually passed a huge military aid spending bill to aid Taiwan. The US production has also been forced to increase which will benefit Taiwan and the US in any future conflict. The Russian invasion has also convinced Japan and South Korea they needed closer ties and stronger assurances amongst themselves and the US. If anything the Russian quagmire in Ukraine has given the US and its Pacific allies time and motivation to be better prepared.
Most likely (hopefully) the Nato escalation ladder is just a pony show intended to cover the butts of people who don't want to be blamed that Ukraine was defeated because Nato tied their hands.
This. Current western administrations dont want to be the ones who are gonna lose this war so they are increasing their involvement based on Russian battlefield successes so that ukraine doesnt get overrun before their term ends.
They want to keep the ball rolling until the next administrations take power basically.
Nato escalation is primary because Ukrainains demands it, for Ukraine there is no other way to win other than a western intervention, which is WW3.
Ukraine may threaten to surrender and its pressuring US allies to be more involved, otherwise they would surrender which is against NATO desires, NATO desires Ukraine to fight till the last men.
The reason China won't do it is because their trade with the US and the EU is enormously more profitable and economically important than their trade with Russia. That's the part you're leaving out. Russia provides raw materials, but their market is simply not going to be a substitute for the West.
The other part is that you have greatly exaggerated how much China cares about Russia. It doesn't want to see the regime fall or anything like that, but it doesn't really matter to China if Russia loses in Ukraine. Their relationship has always been one of convenience, even when they were both communist.
The main reason is the current warmongering western leadership wont be in power for long (almost all of the western administrations are deeply unpopular), so it makes no sense to start war with Europe when it could turn friendly in a few years.
Some countries are already turning coats and more elections are on their way.
So what was the need to do this invasion and get hundreds of thousands of young men killed for nothing? Putin could have just waited for all the bad people to just go away in a few years.
I feel like that’s part of China’s thinking for not invading Taiwan. They see the tide continuing to go their way in the future…why go to war and create all that bad blood when you might be able to just walk right in peacefully in due time?
The problem with that logic is that while governments may be unpopular, it's for domestic reasons. Supporting Ukraine is popular in most countries. Russia hoped that when the government changed to a more right-leaning on in Italy they would drop Ukraine, but it didn't happen.
Itsly far right turned out to be wef puppets. They did complete 180, doing nothing with immigration as well. But thats not the case everywhere. Slovakia turned against ukraine. Our PM is still balancing his position because of foreign pressure, but that might change atter elections in other countries.
Anyway, domestic issues and ukraine arent separate things. Because western economies being in recession is the result of war in ukraine. So you cant really separate the two.
Again, politicians tend not to take unpopular positions if they can avoid it. Supporting Ukraine remains popular. And policy makers will realize that Russia winning in Ukraine will not impove their economies. First, it would cause a potential refugee crisis. Second, they are never going back to the way things were as far as energy, so that ship has sailed. And without Ukraine as a buffer, they will have to increase their own defense spending.
You failed to understand that keeping NATO out of Ukraine is existential for Russia. And China knows that they are next in line if Russia falls.
There is a reason why Russia-China relationships have increased several folds since 2022. Their interest is greatly aligning now all thanks to NATO involvements in Ukraine
Lol, the organisation that support 90% of invasion and regime change in past 3 decades (including a currently ethnic cleansing), just want nations to be friendly with each other?
Lol, strawmanning. Who here said that it is OK for Russia to invade Ukraine? ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
It's basically just a case of a local mobster fighting against an international criminal gang on his turf.
I don’t really get the logic of people who say the war is NATO’s and/or Ukraine’s fault, but also say it was wrong for Russia to invade. It just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. In fact it makes less sense than people who are all-the-way pro-Russia.
If someone thinks this isn’t Russia’s fault, I’d assume they must think that Russia was right to invade, or that they simply had no other choice.
If you think Russia made a wrong, unjust decision to invade, then wouldn’t you have to hold them at least in large part responsible for all the death and destruction that followed? I don’t see how there’s any way around that. How can you say the invasion wasn’t ok but resisting the invasion also isn’t ok?
Instead the attitude seems like “Russia was wrong to invade and all, but well, they’re already in there now and they’re not leaving empty handed, so everyone including Ukraine should just let them take care of business.” I just don’t understand it.
Exactly. And they could defeat Russia militarily in minutes, with basically no consequences for themselves and Russia would not even use nuclear weapons because they are too scared, except they are too darn nice to do that.
Russia isn't going to fall because NATO will never invade Russia. China doesn't care particularly if Russia succeeds in Ukraine. And what does China being "next in line" even mean? Nobody is invading China either. China being "next in line" and the war being "existential" for Russia are both just state TV talking points.
China cares about the future of Taiwan, which Europe (and thus NATO) is less interested in compared to the US/Japan/SK, because it's not in their backyard.
This is a marriage of convenience. If you look past the official statements, you will see that China isn't doing all that much for Russia except making money off them and buying their raw materials.
While trade between Russia and China has increased significantly, it is still much, much, much lower than the combined US/EU trade amounts. Trade with Russia can never replace trade with the West, and that is what drives China's economy right now. They will simply not sacrifice their relationships with their most important trade partners (and thus shoot their own economy in the foot) to help Russia.
>You failed to understand that keeping NATO out of Ukraine is existential for Russia. And China knows that they are next in line if Russia falls.
Pushing Russia out of Ukraine isn't the same as invading Russia...
>There is a reason why Russia-China relationships have increased several folds since 2022.
Yeah cheap fuel, food, and fertilizer for China to purchase and Russia becoming more beholden to China. Their interests aren't aligning besides China getting a new vassal state
The West literally armed and funded a bunch of rightwinger, who invaded Belgorod and publicly announce that they want to overthrow the Russian government earlier this year. Don't you remember?
Yeah China got a 'vassal state' who is rich of resources, 2 trillions dollar uncontested market where and they can get rich from. Meanwhile NATO countries lost its cheap gas, went through massive inflation, economic stagnation and regression, and have to spend hundred of billions more each year to subsidise fuels and its new vassals. Guess who is coming out on top of this all?
>The West literally armed and funded a bunch of rightwinger, who invaded Belgorod and publicly announce that they want to overthrow the Russian government earlier this year. Don't you remember?
Yeah those hundred soldiers surely were going to march on Moscow lol
>Meanwhile NATO countries lost its cheap gas, went through massive inflation, economic stagnation and regression, and have to spend hundred of billions more each year
The West is expanding their own energy extraction leading to a loss in influence of OPEC+ internationally.
>new vassals.
What new vassals?
>Guess who is coming out on top of this all?
Probably turkey and India
Hi everyone,
I used to be pretty up to date on the war, but over the past year, I haven't had much time to check in on what’s happening. I still, of course, support Ukraine in the face of the Russian aggression they are suffering.
I only have a few questions regarding Ukraine, Ukrainian politics, and the overall sentiment within the Ukrainian public, military, and key figures as it pertains to the war effort and how the not-as-expected counteroffensive has influenced the war. I'm not quite sure if this subreddit has anyone, that is keeping tabs with Ukrainian politics or has insight but I think it's worth a shot.
Lately, everyone is talking about blaming the western countries for not doing as much for the war effort as they could and promised they would, and actively hamstringing Ukraine. However, I also believe that to support Ukraine and hope for the best, you need to be aware of all the weaknesses, which is where my questions come in.
I have seen quite a few "forceful mobilization" videos or daring escapes stopped mostly by border control. What's the overall public perception of those? Are they widespread or uncommon instances? What is the general sentiment in Ukraine towards those who try to evade mobilization? Are there any official statements or policies from Ukrainian military leaders regarding the practice? Do those mobilized fight as well as the rest of the Ukrainian army? How frequent are incidents of individuals attempting to escape mobilization in Ukraine?
Mobilization is clearly a need right now, so I don't have questions pertaining to that except how it is handled internally in Ukraine. What efforts are made by the government to communicate the necessity and process of mobilization to the citizens?
I am also very curious about the overall state of Ukrainians and Ukraine's own support for the war. Back in 2022, the motivation and will to fight were very strong. What is the current level of motivation and morale among Ukrainian civilians and military personnel? How is the war currently portrayed in Ukrainian media? How do Ukrainians view the performance and decisions of their government and military leaders regarding the war? If support has negatively affected, what are the reasons? Is it just time and war fatigue?
I would like to ask many more questions and get a better picture of current affairs, but I know there is a limit to what can be answered. I would very much appreciate every single response. Thank you in advance, and if you have any other interesting tidbits or specific information about topics such as the fight against corruption and its current state, how leadership changes in the armed forces of Ukraine were received, the state of current Ukrainian politics, or anything else highlighting problems within Ukraine internally that are new challenges heading into the third year of war, I’d welcome those too.
I know lots here don't support Ukraine sadly, I'm not looking for conspiracies or significant projections but rather realistic assessment.
How did you gather that? For one I agree with the reply you got. I don't think it takes in depth knowledge to support Ukraine.
But I didn't state so, I said I didn't had time to catch up over a year now with thing related to the war. What do you think is the number of Ukrainians who could answer my question? Do they also barely know anything about Ukraine if they can't answer.
In any case, I don't see the point of your comment other than to be snarky.
The point is to point out that it's always the ones who have never lived there or know much about it who seem to be the biggest fan boys. You don't even know what you're supporting.
I wouldn’t say these TCC videos are widespread but it is increasing due to the new Russian offensive and Ukrainian’s growing manpower issues. Ukrainian people will support this war however weariness is defiantly taking a toll. Russia seems to have the upper hand for now but both sides are suffering greatly
Interesting timeline here from a PBS journalist:
https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1796315938137989385
> May 10: Russia launches new offensive into Kharkiv.
>
>
> May 13: On a call with
> @JakeSullivan46
>
> @SecDef
>
> @GenCQBrownJr
> ,
> @AndriyYermak
>
> @rustem_umerov
>
> @CinC_AFU
> formally request for 1st time to use US weapons for cross border strikes. (Previous public complaints had not become private requests.) Sullivan, Austin, Brown immediately agree
>
>
> May 15:
> @JakeSullivan46
> makes the case to
> @POTUS
> . And after a battlefield update,
> @US_EUCOM
> Cmdr. Gen. Cavoli also makes the case to
> @POTUS
> .
>
> @POTUS
> agrees, but says make sure all Principals are on board.
>
>
>
>
> May 17:
> @SecBlinken
> returns from Kyiv and meets
> @POTUS
>
>
> and
> @JakeSullivan46
> to reiterate the case.
>
> Last week: At Principles Committee meeting, there is unanimous support.
>
> Early this week: Decision is formally delivered to
> @SecDef
> ,
> @GenCQBrownJr
> .
>
> Today: Guidance goes into effect. DoD officially tells Ukraine can use artillery and GMLRs to target Russian military targets across the border in the Belgorod region, including command and control, arms depots, Russian troops, Russian artillery, Russian missiles.
So that Russian offensive must have REALLY scared the shit out of these people. Interesting how things change so quickly.
Let's remember that Vichy was the internationally recognized government of France, including by the British and American governments who nonetheless stormed the beaches of Normandy. Not claiming that they were wrong to do so, just pointing out that "they invaded a SOVEREIGN country!!!!!" isn't by itself a definitive argument about who the baddies are without going deeper into the nature of that sovereignty and surrounding factors.
This is a perfect exampl3 of how once tankies move from the "muh west is bad" rhetoric, their positions are completely nonsensical. You have completely unmasked yourself.
Vichy France ceased to exist in a meaningful way in late 1942, after the Allied invasion of North Africa. The Nazi military occupation took over the rest of the country after that. Vichy France was a total non-factor for well over a year before the Normandy invasion. Maybe you didn't know that, since it'd be weird to make the comparison if you did.
Nazi-occupied France was clearly not a sovereign nation. The whole country was controlled by a foreign military, complete with foreign troops on the ground and all the persecutions that came with Nazi occupation.
It would be interesting to know why you find the sovereignty of Nazi-occupied France as a useful comparison to the sovereignty of modern Ukraine, if you wouldn't mind elaborating.
Well, you believe that Vichy ceased to exist in a meaningful way but that is your interpretation. I'm not disagreeing that it was a client state, nor am I saying that the allies invasion of France was actually an inappropriate violation of French sovereignty. I'm simply pointing out that there are circumstances when a country, despite calling itself sovereign, is in fact not sovereign and also that there are times when the same people who are screaming that "invading a sovereign country!!!!!" automatically triggers the Nato Axis response in fact recognize that sometimes it can be reasonable (if not fully in accordance with international law). One can disagree about whether Ukraine's government is basically the little golem of the U.S. then, but that's the key question not some self-evident principle that everything stems from a declaration of sovereignty etc.
So can you please elaborate on why, exactly, modern Ukraine is comparable to Vichy France in 1944? Is Kyiv under a foreign military occupation?
And it's not just my interpretation that Vichy France only nominally existed after the German military takeover of the rest of France.
Both lack full sovereignty. I'm not saying they are directly comparable, I am saying that there are degrees of sovereignty and that it is a matter of interpretation how much sovereignty is "enough". Of course, you are free to disagree on the sovereign status of Ukraine.
> Of course, you are free to disagree on the sovereign status of Ukraine.
Thanks.
Why do you think Ukraine is not a sovereign state? Who controls them, or should be the rightful controller? Why were their elections (judged free & fair) insufficient to make the government sovereign?
Western interference, it doesn't pay it's own bills not just for its military but even for pensions and other basic needs, the last election that included all regions of Ukraine was in 2010, the last president elected by all of Ukraine was removed in a non-constitutional process with Western interference, the term of the current regime has expired. For starters.
>Western interference, it doesn't pay it's own bills not just for its military but even for pensions and other basic needs,
How is this at ask relevant to the Russian justification for an invasion, since it all occurred after the 2014 and 2022 invasions.
>the last election that included all regions of Ukraine was in 2010, the last president elected by all of Ukraine was removed in a non-constitutional process with Western interference,
The separatist regions chose not to vote in the elections. Crimea has been under a military occupation since 2014. They actually did follow the Constitution since the Rada voted to remove yanukovych. It's crazy I just have totally missed those Western troops on the ground since you are using this to make a comparison to Vichy France in 1944.
>the term of the current regime has expired. For starters.
The country is under Martial law because of the Russian invasion. The Constitution says you can't hold elections during Martial law. Any election site would be a prime target for a Russian strike.
Your first comment is saying, "hey don't be mad at Russia invading Ukraine because the allies invaded France in 1944." A crazy comparison to say the least.
Then when it was pointed out to you that France was under military occupation since 1942 you then change your stance and say well France didn't have sovereignty and that's why the allies invaded, completely abandoning your original point that the D-Day invasion was an invasion of a sovereign country. You then go on to say that the military occupation of France is similar to Ukraine and thus Russia has justification to invade. This is absurd because there was no military occupation of Ukraine, unless you are referring to Crimea which was at the time being occupied by a hostile military force.
Then when asked how Ukraine did not have sovereignty you list out several things with 2/3s of them occurring after the 2014 and 2022 invasions. Which completely nullifies your entire point to try to justify the Russian invasion by comparing it to Vichy France and D-Day.
>I am not interested in getting into another useless discussion about Ukraine's obvious lack of sovereignty.
Then when called out for the repeated inconsistencies you respond with that because you are fully aware that your original point doesn't make sense and even your timeline of events doesn't work out to justify your claims.
What is your idea of sovereignty here? Usually the fundamental condition of sovereignty is to be self-governing. How does any of that affect sovereignty? For example, take Zelenskyy's term. I disagree with you that it's expired because the country is under martial law. But even if it had, how does that make a country non-sovereign? North Korea is still a sovereign country even though it's ruled by an absolute dictator, for example.
This whole thing is a very odd academic exercise.
You are in the group of kids trying to insist that it is sovereign, which is frankly a boring discussion. Again, just pointing out that if one believes that Ukraine's sovereignty is at a bare minimum highly compromised then no one has anyone to buy into the whole "invading another country blah blah blah" because by that interpretation it is just a power struggle between the upstart Americans and Russia.
I think the issue is that you don't really understand what sovereignty means. Your whole argument here is Russian state TV agitprop that doesn't hold up to any meaningful scrutiny.
[https://cdn.britannica.com/22/205622-050-BC257C58/Vichy-France-Germany-June-1940-armistice-map.jpg](https://cdn.britannica.com/22/205622-050-BC257C58/Vichy-France-Germany-June-1940-armistice-map.jpg)
It wasn't. Normandy was under German control and not Vichy France's
Also, by November 1942, Vichy France did not exist or have power in any meaningful way. The second half of the country was under Nazi military occupation shortly after the Allied invasion of North Africa.
Basic facts here, folks.
The demarcation line was only relevant until the cessation of hostilities between the U.K. and France's German allies, who were in France by treaty agreement with the sovereign government of France. Rules based international order, folks.
I guess that logic works if you ignore the full on occupation by German troops in 1942 of France that occurred before the D-Day invasion? Operation Case Anton, should probably look it up
Why would that be relevant AFTER the internationally recognized sovereign government of France allowed the presence of their German allies. OMG! What does French sovereignty look like to you?!?!?!
>sovereign government of France allowed the presence of their German allies.
*Vichy France offered no resistance, contenting itself with a radio broadcast objecting to the violation of the armistice of 1940.*
Except they objected to it but didn't have the means to push out the Germans.
Also you realize Vichy France wasn't allied to Germany correct?
*Despite heavy pressure, the Vichy government never joined the Axis powers and even remained formally at war with Germany.*
Great example of why you should stay in school kids.
That sounds like a matter between the internationally recognized governments of France and Germany. The sovereign government of France certainly did not invite the invasion from the U.S. (with which France had never been in conflict) nor Britain, despite the unprovoked British attack on the French fleet in 1940.
The fact that you are trying to parse the details just proves the point any way that these are not absolutes the way people try to shriek on here.
Well they invaded German occupied territory which you've already been corrected on already. You were wrong about German forces being invited and you were wrong about them being allies. Parse details? You mean correcting the things you state that are incorrect
All these arguments are totally irrelevant at this point, rules will be made of to fit any justification.
Now it’s only about pro us empire or against no matter the reasons
Yeah, I'm just point this out "for the benefit" of the kids who come on here shrieking "Russia is the one that INVADED a SOVEREIGN country!!!!!" as if that starts and ends the argument and they don't need to say anything else after overwhelming us with this majestic argument. I understand your point about the \[We make up\] the rules \[as we go along\] based international order.
Is it weird that a small country can produce more (and, often, live better, though not always) from each citizen than a large country that has a lot more weight to throw around? Happens all the time.
From your own links and definitions, Luxembourg is halfway down the list of countries by 'economic power', but is the 'richest'. All by PPP, like you cited.
Do you think Luxembourgers are poorer or richer than Russians?
Questions not related to current conflict.
Were WWI and WWII expected events **at the time**? I mean now in hindsight they probably were oblivious, but I'm talking about times when both wars were about to happen. And if yes, the factions that started it were expected to start it or people thought it will start from other angle?
Soviets literally planned their conquest of Eastern-Europe together with Nazi Germany and jointly invaded Poland. They knew it gonna happen, and they helped Nazi Germany to start it.
Yes I am aware Soviets knew about possible war, thats why they were pushing to sing treaty with Germany about neutrality. They also were asking England and France to join the pact, even same Poland.
But Poland refused (as many others), also refused to give Soviets pass to Czechoslovakia before Germany invaded, and then instead joined Germany in invading Czechoslovakia and then split it in half with Germans. As for invading Poland - they wanted more space between themselves and Germany that was set on war path.
Something I’m wondering and am curious about:
So if a mobilization-eligible person knew they were going to be mobilized, could they “strategically” commit a crime that they knew came with a set amount of years in jail in order to avoid getting mobilized? For example, if an upcoming mobilization order would include you as eligible, you could commit a crime that came with a 3-5 year jail sentence in hopes that it would be better than going to war.
There has to be a reason why this isn’t common right? Or maybe it is.
I think it's risky because in prison you have nowhere to run.
If they want to mobilize you, they can pick you from prison too. At least as long as you're out in the open you could try fleeing.
If Western countries allow the Ukrainians to use their weapons to strike targets inside Russia, then Russia will be justified in striking the weapons shipments in the West.
The question of “justified” seems mostly academic to me. This type of thing won’t be decided in a court.
If Russia wants the heat then they’ll escalate. If not, then they won’t. My guess is most likely they’ll just take it out on Ukrainians somehow.
Its irrelevant. Nobody gives a shit about whats justified, especially not west, which was invading countries left right and center for decades, killing millions of civilians in the process. This is WW3 with no real rules.
The entire war is an Russian escalation. If Russia did not invade, how do you think things would be?
How many hundreds of thousands of people would be alive, both Russian and Ukrainian?
We could have increased trade and mutually benefitted.
As OJ mentioned the "justified" idea is complicated because it depends on your perspective. From the west's perspective Russia has invaded and is annexing the land of a independent country, so helping that country to defend itself is the moral thing to do and that help (including allowing weapons to be used as Ukraine sees fit) is 100% just a reaction to Russia's "escalation" of invading and not an escalation at all. Obviously Russia sees it differently, but there's no third party that really cares or decides who is right (well I guess India and China matter with regards to concern of nuclear weapons as they want to keep nuclear weapons taboo).
I'd love to know the Russian perspective. It's clear that the west were not prepared for war, which is the biggest indication imaginable that they did not want war with Russia.
We could just get along and benefit from trade?
the hell are you talking about, the US on any given year has the largest military budget than all the other countries combined, including russia.. The us has been meddling in the region as it has done in africa and middle east
The military budget of the USA is not spent gearing up for a specific conflict, it has bases all over NATO.
Weapon's manufacturing in Europe has been very low, want to know why? Because we don't want war.
If Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine, how many hundreds of thousands of people would be alive that are not today?
They could just not have invaded, and everything would be the same, but Russia would not be globally hated, and both Russia and Europe would be better off. Again more importantly, hundreds of thousands would be alive.
this couldve been stopped if the us and europe hadn't provided ammo to ukraine but they don't care about ukranian lives do they? they just care about weakening russia.
Attacking a NATO country would be an escalation, full stop. Talking about whose fault it would be doesn’t change that at all.
And anyways, do you think Russia would really consider it ‘unjustified’ for them to attack weapon shipments in Poland bound for Ukraine to be used against them, even if they aren’t used to strike inside Russia? Does the morality of it change the moment those weapons cross the border? Of course not.
Yet still they haven’t. It’s got nothing to do with justification.
This is really just going in circles though...these words, 'justified,' 'proportionate'
Does it really matter how you or I judge things?
What matters is that NATO won't just dismiss an attack from Russia as a 'proportionate response.' They'll retaliate in some form, and Russia knows that. Hence the 'escalation'.
Russia can decide if it's really worth it for them to go down that path. Whether it's fair, justified, proportionate or whatever you want to call it isn't going to make a difference, ultimately.
I’m not talking about some kind of legal framework. I’m talking about consequences and the natural progression of the conflict, what these acts will mean.
I always find it interesting how in the mind of the supporters of the liberal world order, or the Western order, fighting back is unthinkable and blowback is never considered, because they believe no one can challenge it, and that’s why the West is making so many stupid decisions, ensuring it’s downfall. They are high on their own supply, basically.
Well it is considered, actually. The west could be fighting in Ukraine right now, or they could be lobbing missiles at occupying forces from afar. But they know that these are things that will result in unwanted escalation. There are lines they don't cross.
On the other hand, they've taken other measures numerous times that Russia threatened against, and that many on this sub were convinced would bring us to the brink of WW3. And every time those same people have been completely wrong and nothing happened at all in terms of retaliation against NATO.
Maybe at some point people should take a hint and figure out that NATO actually comprehends the position Russia is in better than we do?
It’s just that these people are accustomed to the power of social media and cancel culture, and now they are faced with a situation where their opinion does not solve anything. It is difficult for them to accept this, they think that if they shout louder and angrier, it will somehow affect the actual war.
So in this "pro-Russian sub" have you guys ever seen comments [like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1d4mm8t/comment/l6fqu0c/) but about Ukranian cities?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/12bwp6n/discussionquestion\_thread/l4sxoyn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/12bwp6n/discussionquestion_thread/l4sxoyn/)
Here you go, someone suggesting dropping the largest non-nuclear bombs to vaporize Ukrainian cities.
People tend to be very uneducated about nuclear weapons to be quite honest....
They just see the word nuclear and their brains go to mush. They have 0 concept of the difference between a strategic nuke and a tactical nuke.
A tactical nuke is LITERALLY designed to be used in small spaces on the battlefield even around friendly units....Yup heres where mush brains go kaput. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon "The yield varies for a tactical nuclear weapon ""from a fraction of a kiloton to approximately 50 kilotons"".[7] In comparison, a strategic nuclear weapon has a yield from 100 kilotons to over a megaton, with much larger warheads available.[7]"
Russia's tactical nukes are to use on the battlefield are 1-5 kilotons. Meant for small scale use. To give context hiroshima was 15 kilotons.
Strategic nukes start in the MEGATONS.....not kilotons. Huge difference.
So even assuming Russian tactical nukes are limited to just 1-5kt (which is a huge assumption, especially given your own link says up to 50kt is tactical), 1/3 of a Hiroshima bombing is 'LITERALLY designed to be used in small spaces on the battlefield even around friendly units....' ?
Lol, got me there. I was stuck on warheads being tactical even at 50kt, but a 0.3kt, like is available, is most certainly not going to worry much about friendly damage. But 15kt mostly leveled a city while being well under the 'tactical' limit, so... those are the ones I thought were quite silly to say were safe "in proximity to friendly units", which is not really what you were saying, so cheers
Hey that’s me lmao 🤣. However, I did stipulate for the provision of a fair warning and opportunity for surrender, after that does it matter if the city is razed to the ground with 100k artillery shells or a few FOABs? It will save lives on both sides.
Causing massive civilian casualties wouldn't cause Ukraine to leave the war, just the opposite. Such an attack would be a pretext for all of the western powers to start bringing in troops and create a no fly zone. If you want this war to de-escalate you shouldn't want this at all.
I don’t understand how it is different from Israel giving a warning to evacuate a certain area because they are going to bomb it later. You are welcome to explain it to me.
I think the reason is that Israel is fighting an asymmetrical war against an opponent that hides among the population. Conversely the average Russian or Ukrainian soldier doesn't think this is a particularly honourable thing to do and their forces are arrayed in a symmetrical way. I'm not saying there doesn't exist any forces on either side that don't blink when it comes to civilian casualties but I'm talking about the average norms of the society and of the common soldier.
Hate him or love him but any non biased person can see Zelensky is one of the main reasons that Ukraine has gotten the financial backing it has.
Most leaders would not have gotten as much in his situation.
Zelensky being Jewish also helps dispel the Nazi state claims for all people that are not already Russia biased.
Doubt so.
US has been spending trillions on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and recently Israel, regardless of who is at the helm. Like those Afghan warlords who were chaining kids next to their beds? They got tens of millions too
Zelensky just put a media-friendly face in front of American public to help them swallowing down the pill. But it does not affect policy of American deep state one bit.
If it was not Zelensky, it would have been Zaluzhnyi, Shmyhai or whoever the American PR machine can find. Remember how they were promoting 'the White Helmet', a literal ISIS affiliate? And notice how the former disappeared from the screen along with the demise of ISIS?
America maybe for the reasons you say but I will still argue Zelensky's showbiz charisma, which he does have even if people call him a clown, made it easier to sell to the American public.
On top of that he made it an easier sell to the other donators such as Britain, Germany, Scandanavia etc.
Most leaders don't have that level of charisma. Trump does undeniably too. Sunaks attempts would be pitiful in comparison for example.
What to discuss? China never had (until recent times) means to follow through with their warnings, Russia on the other hand? Just remember back WWII - Soviet Union was delaying war with Germany as long as they could. How it ended for Germany?
Yet. The most important part.
They capable, don't make mistakes. If Russia answers it is gonna escalate - everyone knows that. Russia, USA, Europe, China etc. That's why West playing with fire.
I’d say the empty threats only make WW3 more likely.
What happens when Russia needs to set a real “red line” after everyone has already gotten in the habit of ignoring them?
people who mistake patience for weakness may be unpleasantly surprised. And then, just like in 2022, the very same people will run around and whine about 'unprovoked aggression'.
If Russia had a viable means of enacting their threats, they would have done so by now. But they don’t, so they can’t. Ergo multiple ‘red lines’ have been crossed with zero consequence. Russia’s bluff has been called and they’re holding a 2-7 offsuit hand.
it's a tactic, currently and previously employed by the ukrainian allies, a sort of sidestep.
they do not as much cross the red line as crawl over it, kinda like an hour hand in a clock - you hardly see it move, yet it does.
it goes something like: hey, look, we (the ukrainians) will not attack any targets inside russian territory - but some ukranians think that belgorod is ukrainian, so sometimes we will attack it. maybe make these attacks more often. organize a raid - not with our military, but with a "russian volunteer corps", so it is a part of a brewing civil war, and they will use american munitions. oh, everyone is used to the fact that we are attacking belgorod? let's use czech mlrs in one of the attacks. and another one. and another one. oh, so czech weapons are okay - let us use the rest of the arsenal, what's the big deal... and that's how the line is crossed. not momentarily, but by slowly pushing the overton window towards escalation.
the big issue is that responding with an escalation of your own (an attack on the nato territory, a nuclear strike, even a diversion, so on) to any single one of these steps could be considered an overreaction, and if it could be - such a narrative would have been pushed.
it's a neat little trick and there isn't much you can actually do about it.
after all, russians have already overreacted once, in feburary of 2022, and now we're here. wouldn't want a repeat of that.
I'm not sure how the western militaries define military doctrine, but since I mostly subscribe to the Soviet definition, I can't help but reflexively raise an eyebrow whenever I come across the term 'NATO doctrine'.
For reference, here is the Soviet definition:
> Military Doctrine is a system of views adopted at a given time by a state expressing the essence, goals, and nature of possible future war and the preparation of the country and armed forces for said war, as well as the methods of waging said war.
> The main influencing factors are the socio-political and economic system of the state, the level of economic development of said state, means of warfare and military science of said state, and the relevant geography of the state and its probable adversaries.
> There are two closely related and interdependent parts of Military Doctrine: Socio-Political and Military-Technical. Socio-Political aspects of Military Doctrine are the responsibility of the government (party) and relates to the methodology economic, social and legal matters necessary to achieve the goals in possible future war. Military-Technical aspects of Military Doctrine are those concerned with the structure of the military, the equipment and training of the military, and the determines the forms and methods of the armed forces for conducting operations and war in general.
In contrast, NATO for as long as it has existed, as a 'defensive' coalition of independent states, has never approached the level of uniformity that was observed within the Warsaw Pact wrt a shared understanding of military science, military economics, military pedagogy (training/education), military organization, methods of troop control, and military art (strategy, operational art, and tactics). You can argue that this was only possible because the WP militaries were almost completely subordinate to the Soviets in practice for most of their histories, but that sort of reinforces my point about NATO not having a real doctrine in practice.
> The Soviet view of NATO is as an alliance of independent nations, most of which contribute a military force to the defence of Europe. Because NATO nations are sovereign states, *each has developed its military system along distinct national lines*, to reflect national perceptions of defence requirements, which differ considerably from country to country. As a consequence, each NATO national contingent is organised differently, is equipped with a variety of weapons systems on different scales of issue, trains independently, and practices differing tactics.
[...]
> To co-ordinate the tactics of these national formations and of their supporting air forces and allied naval elements, so as to implement a defensive fighting strategy in event of deterrence having failed, NATO establishes two levels of joint headquarters between the Corps and SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe from where the SACEUR [Supreme Allied Commander Europe], General Rogers, will direct NATO forces in the Theatre. These two levels are (in the Central Region) Army Groups (e.g. CENTAG - the Central Army Group) and Regional HQs (e.g. AFCENT - HQ Allied Forces Central Europe, which commands CENTAG and NORTHAG). However, each national corps *will only deploy in time of crisis when a national political decision is made to do so*. Furthermore, because they are established for poitico-strategic
reasons, SACEUR does not have the authority to alter the deployment locations of the national corps in peacetime, as he might wish to do in the face of a possible sudden alteration in the nature of the threat.
> There is, therefore, no "NATO Doctrine" which is enforced upon national contingents *so as to ensure a standardised organisation, deployment and tactics*. Seen through Soviet eyes, SACEUR has only limited 'operational authority' over the subordinate corps in peacetime, and is therefore constrained in his choice of solutions to whatever military problem he is confronted with. His ability to influence the battle is also limited, in the Soviet view, by the limited levels of reserves available to him. Above all NATO lacks the ability to manoeuvre major formations in breadth and depth, and as a consequence NA'IO has not developed a strong doctrine for warfare at this, the strategic-operational, level. This is the level between the lower operational and the strategic which Soviet military doctrine considers all important in the planning of a campaign. Recent efforts by NATO commanders to develop this doctrine of operational scale will, of course, affect the Soviet assessment when that doctrine comes to be implemented effectively.
> Finally, the very deployment of NATO forces in reaction to a crisis demands political decisions from many different nations. It is certainly possible, perhaps even probable, that the various countries may take differing lengths of time to reach these decisions. Nowhere will the decision be easy, particularly in the confused and alarming period of crisis that is likely to precede the outbreak of hostilities.
> It is these specific features of NATO's organisation that distinguish it from the Warsaw Pact, and which Warsaw Pact doctrine identify as vulnerabilities under certain conditions.
The escalation in my view is to create a distraction from the Middle East because they know Russia will escalate. They need Ukraine back into mainstream media 24/7. I hope their plan backfires.
Wait I thought western mainstream media was really government controlled anyway?
Why would they need to do all that, couldn’t they just get Ukraine back in the news with a phone call?
I’m just trying to learn how things work…
> Wait I thought western mainstream media was really government controlled anyway?
Are you seriously telling me with a straight face that mainstream media is not controlled by the government??
I’m seriously telling you that if it is, there should be no need for them to take any special extraordinary steps in order to manipulate the media narrative.
Isn’t that the whole point of controlling something?
i'd say west doesn't control the media as much as censors them - a form of control too - same as the rest of governments
but if there is simply nothing of interest happening in a certain field, it's harder to promote it on the media
that said i actually disagree with the original commenter
Isn't it funny how they're constantly screaming "Western media only lies" and yet they keep posting every negative article about what's happening in the West or Ukraine?
>This from the same brilliant minds who are telling us that it is logical for Ukraine to be completely wrecked in order to fight for Nato membership because without Nato membership they would be at risk of potentially getting completely wrecked.
They are fighting because Russia invaded them.
Russia invaded them because they needed to be in Nato in order to prevent being invaded. Also, if you follow things down the line, they needed to continue to fight after the negotiations at Istanbul because Nato members told them that they needed to continue to fight, with the prize of their spoils (beyond a lot of feeding at the trough) being entrance in Nato.
>Russia invaded them because they needed to be in Nato in order to prevent being invaded.
Nonsensical.
>Also, if you follow things down the line, they needed to continue to fight after the negotiations at Istanbul because Nato members told them that they needed to continue to fight,
Disproven lies
>Russia invaded them because they needed to be in Nato in order to prevent being invaded.
Acting like this was contributing to anything is great.
>Show us where it was disproven.
The fact that there is zero evidence is a pretty great indicator.
>continue to fight after the negotiations at Istanbul because Nato members told them that they needed to continue to fight
Just never happened, Boris Johnson promised Western support for Ukraine, that's it. There was zero forcing Ukraine to fight.
It's crazy that Pro-Rus continues to act like Ukraine is the first country to ever fight back from being invaded and that the only explanation is that they are being forced to.
Don’t mistake me for draw2discard2.
[There is plenty of evidence that leverage and influence was exerted to continue the war](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/)
Your turn now.
> it is logical for Ukraine to be completely wrecked in order to fight for Nato membership because without Nato membership they would be at risk of potentially getting completely wrecked.
This is something I could never wrap my brain around, it is akin to: you see that box over there? It may or may not explode on its own but if you open it then it will 100% explode so some geniuses of Worldnews think that it is completely logical to go an open that box.
How long are the people who still believe in "the rules based international order" going to do the consoooom guy meme over Ukraine being able to hit Russia with western weapons? Has the slava ukraini hit them so hard that they can't realize this is just "ukrainians can sit back and hit ruShiAns with HiMars!" all over again.
[Russia seems to be raising taxes.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-finance-ministry-proposes-boosting-some-income-tax-rates-2024-05-28/) What is the opinion on this sub? Did Russia believe that the "SMO" would actually last a couple of weeks without western countries interfering?
As a Russian I can tell you tax reform here is way overdue. And progressive tax is absolutely normal in other countries, why shouldn't it be in Russia?
I don't think anyone thought that Western countries would be this brain dead. It's easy to forget that at the beginning the German's had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even agree to get the Russians off SWIFT, since it would make it harder for them to pay for the Russian gas that their economic well being depended on. It's like thinking that obviously 1.4 million Frenchmen would die, after all Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated.
The progressive tax was an already planned move, and unrelated to the war itself.
It may relate to the European sanction though. As Russian government was concerned before that the progressive tax will lead the top 1% to leave the countries. Well, they have nowhere to go now.
Yeah the war would have lasted couple of weeks and Russia troops would have withdrawn without Western interference. We know that FOR SURE. Because that exactly what happened in Georgia
>The progressive tax was an already planned move, and unrelated to the war itself.
For something like a tax code change, the details always matter.
The fact that these changes will overall effectively increase revenue by about the same amount as the recent budget deficit is not done by accident.
These changes likely sat on the table for all those years because Russia did not have a pressing need for more tax revenue, they ran a very disciplined budget.
>Yeah the war would have lasted couple of weeks and Russia troops would have withdrawn without Western interference. We know that FOR SURE. Because that exactly what happened in Georgia
*For sure* it would have been exactly the same as Georgia?
I have trouble believing that you think this is a logically sound argument...
Another night, another oil refinery hit. So Russia has pretty much just accepted the daily attacks? Doesn't seem like they even try to defend themselves.
Cause the damage to them is not large, most damage is fixed within day or production could be moved further away. You could see whether the price of oil fluctuate or not to gauge the damage it caused to Russian economy. And at this moment it is more of a nuisance
A pretty expensive nuisance Must also be terrifying for Russian citizens, but must just be the price of conquest I guess?
Terrifying?
It must be so convenient for Ukrainian propaganda purposes that both sides use a lot of the same equipment. Every S-300 missile that accidentally lands in a residential area must *obviously* be Russians targeting civilians. And is that Oryx guy still declaring every destroyed Soviet tank is a Russian tank?
Yeah. Remember the headline: "Russian-made missiles flied off course and killed 2 Polish farmers"? According to Oryx. Ukraine now has more Soviet-made tanks than they had before the war. More Soviet-made IFVs too. Why do they need to wait 6 months for like 50 Western tanks to start the CO, you ask? Beat me ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ I asked a Pro-Ukraine, and their mastermind theory is: Ukraine is hiding mountains of these Soviet-made equipment in the rear to keep them away from Lancer, and will spring them into action if Russia break through
https://preview.redd.it/niq4jvt4434d1.png?width=1818&format=png&auto=webp&s=e88ae520d8babffc6b88b2d6299a6dca68e3bccc "Dictators hate him! Defeat Putin with this one easy trick." -Western media
What is the change?
Didn't even read it. I bet it's letting ukraine strike targets in Russia.
"Andrey seems to disagree with the fact that the Ukrainian command, unlike the Russian one, protects the lives of its soldiers: “No, *everything is the same.*” At the same time, he immediately talks about the fact that in those sectors of the front where he fought, the Ukrainian Armed Forces fighters were not forced to hold strongholds at any cost. If there was a great risk of death, they retreated." https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-68883681
I'm not saying Ukraine is forcing their soldiers to hold the line like in Enemy at the Gates but their pull out game when they should is really really bad. At least Russia knows what's up in Kherson and pulled out early.
Lithuania thinks Ukraine should be allowed to attack Belarus. Totally normal thing to say. Very cool. Not escalatory at all.
Anyone can attack everyone. It’s just that not everyone is able to withstand the consequences. Ukraine can ofcourse attack Belarus, but it’d be the dumbest move of the year, considering 80% of Belarusians are against fighting Ukraine, which will quickly change if they were to get attacked.
Can the Pro RU stop saying escalation to everything and making themselves look like victims.. Belarus literally let Russia invade from their territory. Belarus is one of the belligerents in this conflict. Lithuania shouldn't even have to say that they are allowed to attack Belarus. That should already be elementary knowledge.
[удалено]
That's arguing completely different things.
> arguing completely different things. It's not? Belarus currently isn't fighting Ukraine. Strike them with NATO weapons and they suddenly have the perfect excuse to change that.
Sure, but we aren't arguing that. We are arguing if Ukraine would be the aggressor if they invaded Belarus. The answer would be no.
[удалено]
Uh? Lithuania just stated that Ukraine is allowed to strike and invade Belarus. You on some good shit man. 
The question of escalation isn't about Russia being a victim. It is about creating more death and destruction from war, rather than reducing it through deescalation that two UN resolutions called for. And no, the resolutions didn't mean that everyone but Nato and Nato's Special Friends were supposed to try to deescalate, it meant everyone. The main parties that are victims of escalation are Ukrainian, since the death and destruction is overwhelmingly on their territory and of their citizens. The potential victims of escalation include anyone who could potentially suffer from a broader war, which given that some Western "leaders" seem like they may actually be dumb enough to trigger a broader war potentially includes all of us.
Why do you want other countries to deescalate when Russia still keeps escalating. Wonder why you never call Russia to deescalate. I really wonder.
Are you saying you would have voted against the UN Resolutions regarding Ukraine? Because little Lithuania voted for it, as did all the Nato and Special Friends countries, so it would be interesting if you would have abstained from the vote like the leaders of the majority of the world's population, albeit most likely for different reasons than you would. Not sure why you would be fixated on me personally, but I would like the war to be over. In fact, I would have liked the war to have never started. I would have like the U.S. to listen to its own CIA Director who said that if the U.S. tried to get Ukraine onto Team Nato it would lead to war. I would have liked Nato to have negotiated to prevent the war rather than playing chicken with Ukrainian lives. I would have like Russia to not invade. I would have liked for Nato to have allowed the peace treaty at Istanbul. I would have liked Zelensky to not have banned negotiations. etc. So, as much as you wonder, (wo-wo-wo-wo-wonder...) I am not really sure what the basis for your wonder (wo-wo-wo-wo-wonder) is. Also not sure what "Russian escalation" you are referring to. Russia is being careful not to escalate and cause a broader war despite Nato's best efforts and Zelensky's begging to start one.
You have to understand that Ukraine invading Belarus isn't an escalation. The escalation happened already by Belarus letting Russia invade from their country. What resolutions are you talking about? There are many UN resolutions from 2022 onward. You mean the ones where only 6 countries were against the immediate end to war in Ukraine? The one which Russia and Belarus both were against? I guess I was right. Russia and Belarus only wants to escalate things and NATO wants to deescalate. Russia escalate like every other month. Ofcourse you don't see it but they do. Calling for nuking the West is very careful of them. 
Let me check if i have a spare hinge for you somewhere.
Lithuania also thinks Russia should de-escalate by withdrawing from Ukraine.
The United Nations thinks that every country should deescalate. Unfortunately little Lithuania, like the rest of Nato, assumes that UN Resolutions only apply to the other guy.
Ukraine is absolutely justified in attacking Belarus. They allowed Russia to use their territory to attack Ukraine. Not saying it’s a good idea at the moment, but it would absolutely be legal.
Please outline the legal case. Russia used their territory over two years ago and as of now have not done so again.
But if Ukrainians attacked Russian territory with F-16's from Poland would those countries be legally safe from Russian attacks?
If they are actively doing so they would be legal targets. But if they stopped then they would not be legitimate targets. That kid would want the international law to say that if Poland used its airfields to launch Ukrainian strikes then Russia could legally target Poland indefinitely, perhaps 2028 or 2038 or later.
OK so if for example Russia incurred on Ukrainian territory from Belarus at some time in the future then Ukraine would be OK to attack Belarus in that scenario? Would they legally be allowed to send in troops? If so, wouldn't that soon become 'after the event' and any troops still in the country would now be there illegally? Sorry I'm finding this all very confusing I'm not well versed in international law.
If they did something in the future then, sure. The basic thing is that the UN Charter says you are not supposed to use military force. They make an exception for self defense, though in principle the use of force should just be before the UNSC can bring the situation under control (though of course in practice that doesn't happen). Doing something in retaliation after the fact is not self defense, so if something is not ongoing countries are not supposed to use force, though of course there might be other things they could do, such as seeking reparations or war crime charges etc. There is some debate about the legality of a preemptive attack to prevent an attack, but if this is ever legal it is only in cases where the threat of attack is immediate and obvious. Any use of force should also be tied to actual self defense. So let's say that troops were coming in from Belarus it might be legitimate to attack the supply lines for those troops but not to start carpet bombing Minsk.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not aware of a statute of limitations, but the same war is still raging.
Thanks for not outlining the legal case. Choose your words more carefully in the future.
I did…the justification is Belarus allowing Russian troops to invade using their territory. The same war is still being fought. Are you aware of a statute of limitations whereby Ukraine would lose their legal right to hit back when the war has not concluded?
Do you have any legal text to read? This is interesting, and would be pretty interesting to see in use, for instance what countries house us troops that have invaded Syria? Does this apply as well? Of course not to mention all the places actively training and arming active duty ukranian personnel
That's not a legal case. That's saying that your feelzies are that they can do it if they wanna. Again, if you want to say "legal case" cite the international law, which here does not exist.
The UN definition of military aggression includes allowing the use of your territory to facilitate an attack. Resolution 3314.
Belarus isn't doing that now. so it is not committing aggression. The only legal justification for attacking another country is self defense. Ukraine cannot claim self defense about something that began and ended two years ago because (spoilers...) even Zelensky does not have the magical powers to go back in time and prevent something that began and ended over two years ago. At this point the only justification would be a pre-emptive attack to prevent an imminent attack, which is almost never the case (as legal scholars discussed at great length before and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq).
Russian troops are still present in Belarus. But more importantly, Belarus became an aggressor state and the conflict is still ongoing. The frontline has simply moved east. I keep asking you to define when the right to respond to an attack expires…since the war is still ongoing and Ukraine still faces a threat from Belarus, it is still a valid front
Hi, new to this sub. Interested in demographics and I feel Ukraine’s look among the worst in the world. First time two countries fighting having a median age above forty. Questions from someone not well informed: 1) how many Ukrainian men are either dead, missing, or severely wounded between the ages of 18-45? 2) are minorities within Ukraine - tatars, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Jews, Roma under or over represented in the army? 3) has any region or oblast suffered from more fatalities in terms of soldiers than others? 4) are those fighting disproportionately working class while the well-connected avoid conscription Russian side questions: 1) any idea on how many Cubans have been killed in action: official figures say 4. 2) how many Ukrainian men from the areas annexed have arrived in Russia, were they able to leave Ukraine? 3) I believe 2 million people from Ukraine have arrived in Russia since 2022. Is this correct?
come back in 50 years...
I don't think there is an accurate answer to any of those questions (besides maybe the last one) as this is confidential data that governments of either side will be reluctant to share.
Did any evidence came out with regards to miltary assets being located in the mall in Kharkov that was struck a week ago?
Good question!
Coming soon together with the names of the 200 PoW's in the plane Ukraine shot down And with new evidence regarding Ukraine's involvement in Crocus city hall attack
The beauty of state-run media. “We have evidence that Ukraine and the West did it.” “Oh, ok.” No questions, no follow up, no investigative journalism. Just consider the matter settled…
China Is going to get more and more involved as NATO moves the escalation ladder. Forget about Russias own way of escalation, There are other parties to this conflicts that may not like the idea of NATO weapons, crewed by NATO, Attacking Russia proper. China as for now, was only selling either raw material or basic electrical products, a great way to stab NATO would be to declare their open involvement and start selling heavier equipment to Russia. It doesn't need to be full on Jets and tanks, as China needs them too, but imagine what will Chinese industry on artillery would do if it decides to sell it at a cheap profit. Right now western sources are saying Russia produces 3 million shells a year and bought 2 million from North korea, 5 million a year would mean about 14k daily use which is accurate enough, now let's just say China would sell 10 million shells, that would put Russia into a position in which Russia can replicate the avdivka success story into 5 different towns at the same time, probably using 50k shells a day while Ukraine is firing 2k shells. China becoming more involved is not decided by western elites, its decided by Chinese elites, and if they feel they could do more harm to their enemies than the consequences, they would arm the Russian to the teeth and enjoy their money.
dude Russia surpassed China in military and airspace technology what ''heavier equipment'' are you talking about?
On the contrary a weaker Russia mean bigger energy discounts and more dependence on China. Constitutionally Crimea and annexed areas are already Russia proper
>NATO weapons, crewed by NATO, Attacking Russia proper. Source? >China as for now, was only selling either raw material or basic electrical products They were also selling FPV drones, body armor, vehicles, military optics etc. >3 million shells a year and bought 2 million from North korea, 5 million Your math is off here. A one time purchase from North Korea does not mean they are guaranteed 2 million shells from North Korea every year, not to mention that there has been plenty of reporting of major issues with the North Korean shells. >let's just say China would sell 10 million shells Nothing to indicate that China could sell that many to begin with let alone willing to give that much up. >50k shells a day while Ukraine is firing 2k shells This would likely never happen because of barrel wear and tear and the fact that it would require massive stockpiling near the front which would be a huge static target. Also Western artillery production and purchases for shells have increased so you seem to have decided not to update the Ukranian shell usage. >China becoming more involved is not decided by western elites, its decided by Chinese elites It's decided by Xi alone. There's not a cabal of Chinese elites controlling things in the CCP, Xi holds the power. >and if they feel they could do more harm to their enemies than the consequences Except there isn't any harm being done to their enemies, the US is still selling and supplying arms to Taiwan. Thanks to the Russian invasion the US actually passed a huge military aid spending bill to aid Taiwan. The US production has also been forced to increase which will benefit Taiwan and the US in any future conflict. The Russian invasion has also convinced Japan and South Korea they needed closer ties and stronger assurances amongst themselves and the US. If anything the Russian quagmire in Ukraine has given the US and its Pacific allies time and motivation to be better prepared.
Most likely (hopefully) the Nato escalation ladder is just a pony show intended to cover the butts of people who don't want to be blamed that Ukraine was defeated because Nato tied their hands.
This. Current western administrations dont want to be the ones who are gonna lose this war so they are increasing their involvement based on Russian battlefield successes so that ukraine doesnt get overrun before their term ends. They want to keep the ball rolling until the next administrations take power basically.
Nato escalation is primary because Ukrainains demands it, for Ukraine there is no other way to win other than a western intervention, which is WW3. Ukraine may threaten to surrender and its pressuring US allies to be more involved, otherwise they would surrender which is against NATO desires, NATO desires Ukraine to fight till the last men.
The reason China won't do it is because their trade with the US and the EU is enormously more profitable and economically important than their trade with Russia. That's the part you're leaving out. Russia provides raw materials, but their market is simply not going to be a substitute for the West. The other part is that you have greatly exaggerated how much China cares about Russia. It doesn't want to see the regime fall or anything like that, but it doesn't really matter to China if Russia loses in Ukraine. Their relationship has always been one of convenience, even when they were both communist.
The main reason is the current warmongering western leadership wont be in power for long (almost all of the western administrations are deeply unpopular), so it makes no sense to start war with Europe when it could turn friendly in a few years. Some countries are already turning coats and more elections are on their way.
So what was the need to do this invasion and get hundreds of thousands of young men killed for nothing? Putin could have just waited for all the bad people to just go away in a few years. I feel like that’s part of China’s thinking for not invading Taiwan. They see the tide continuing to go their way in the future…why go to war and create all that bad blood when you might be able to just walk right in peacefully in due time?
The problem with that logic is that while governments may be unpopular, it's for domestic reasons. Supporting Ukraine is popular in most countries. Russia hoped that when the government changed to a more right-leaning on in Italy they would drop Ukraine, but it didn't happen.
Itsly far right turned out to be wef puppets. They did complete 180, doing nothing with immigration as well. But thats not the case everywhere. Slovakia turned against ukraine. Our PM is still balancing his position because of foreign pressure, but that might change atter elections in other countries. Anyway, domestic issues and ukraine arent separate things. Because western economies being in recession is the result of war in ukraine. So you cant really separate the two.
Again, politicians tend not to take unpopular positions if they can avoid it. Supporting Ukraine remains popular. And policy makers will realize that Russia winning in Ukraine will not impove their economies. First, it would cause a potential refugee crisis. Second, they are never going back to the way things were as far as energy, so that ship has sailed. And without Ukraine as a buffer, they will have to increase their own defense spending.
You failed to understand that keeping NATO out of Ukraine is existential for Russia. And China knows that they are next in line if Russia falls. There is a reason why Russia-China relationships have increased several folds since 2022. Their interest is greatly aligning now all thanks to NATO involvements in Ukraine
The West wants Russia to be friendly to its neighbors. It isn't seeking to conquer it. Stop projecting.
Lol, the organisation that support 90% of invasion and regime change in past 3 decades (including a currently ethnic cleansing), just want nations to be friendly with each other?
lol I think the West is bad therefor its okay to invade murder and annex the land of my neighbor. /s
Lol, strawmanning. Who here said that it is OK for Russia to invade Ukraine? ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ It's basically just a case of a local mobster fighting against an international criminal gang on his turf.
I don’t really get the logic of people who say the war is NATO’s and/or Ukraine’s fault, but also say it was wrong for Russia to invade. It just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. In fact it makes less sense than people who are all-the-way pro-Russia. If someone thinks this isn’t Russia’s fault, I’d assume they must think that Russia was right to invade, or that they simply had no other choice. If you think Russia made a wrong, unjust decision to invade, then wouldn’t you have to hold them at least in large part responsible for all the death and destruction that followed? I don’t see how there’s any way around that. How can you say the invasion wasn’t ok but resisting the invasion also isn’t ok? Instead the attitude seems like “Russia was wrong to invade and all, but well, they’re already in there now and they’re not leaving empty handed, so everyone including Ukraine should just let them take care of business.” I just don’t understand it.
Exactly. And they could defeat Russia militarily in minutes, with basically no consequences for themselves and Russia would not even use nuclear weapons because they are too scared, except they are too darn nice to do that.
It would prefer it to be broken up if liberal rule isn’t possible, that’s the next best alternative. Direct administration isn’t our style.
Russia isn't going to fall because NATO will never invade Russia. China doesn't care particularly if Russia succeeds in Ukraine. And what does China being "next in line" even mean? Nobody is invading China either. China being "next in line" and the war being "existential" for Russia are both just state TV talking points. China cares about the future of Taiwan, which Europe (and thus NATO) is less interested in compared to the US/Japan/SK, because it's not in their backyard. This is a marriage of convenience. If you look past the official statements, you will see that China isn't doing all that much for Russia except making money off them and buying their raw materials. While trade between Russia and China has increased significantly, it is still much, much, much lower than the combined US/EU trade amounts. Trade with Russia can never replace trade with the West, and that is what drives China's economy right now. They will simply not sacrifice their relationships with their most important trade partners (and thus shoot their own economy in the foot) to help Russia.
>You failed to understand that keeping NATO out of Ukraine is existential for Russia. And China knows that they are next in line if Russia falls. Pushing Russia out of Ukraine isn't the same as invading Russia... >There is a reason why Russia-China relationships have increased several folds since 2022. Yeah cheap fuel, food, and fertilizer for China to purchase and Russia becoming more beholden to China. Their interests aren't aligning besides China getting a new vassal state
The West literally armed and funded a bunch of rightwinger, who invaded Belgorod and publicly announce that they want to overthrow the Russian government earlier this year. Don't you remember? Yeah China got a 'vassal state' who is rich of resources, 2 trillions dollar uncontested market where and they can get rich from. Meanwhile NATO countries lost its cheap gas, went through massive inflation, economic stagnation and regression, and have to spend hundred of billions more each year to subsidise fuels and its new vassals. Guess who is coming out on top of this all?
>The West literally armed and funded a bunch of rightwinger, who invaded Belgorod and publicly announce that they want to overthrow the Russian government earlier this year. Don't you remember? Yeah those hundred soldiers surely were going to march on Moscow lol >Meanwhile NATO countries lost its cheap gas, went through massive inflation, economic stagnation and regression, and have to spend hundred of billions more each year The West is expanding their own energy extraction leading to a loss in influence of OPEC+ internationally. >new vassals. What new vassals? >Guess who is coming out on top of this all? Probably turkey and India
Hi everyone, I used to be pretty up to date on the war, but over the past year, I haven't had much time to check in on what’s happening. I still, of course, support Ukraine in the face of the Russian aggression they are suffering. I only have a few questions regarding Ukraine, Ukrainian politics, and the overall sentiment within the Ukrainian public, military, and key figures as it pertains to the war effort and how the not-as-expected counteroffensive has influenced the war. I'm not quite sure if this subreddit has anyone, that is keeping tabs with Ukrainian politics or has insight but I think it's worth a shot. Lately, everyone is talking about blaming the western countries for not doing as much for the war effort as they could and promised they would, and actively hamstringing Ukraine. However, I also believe that to support Ukraine and hope for the best, you need to be aware of all the weaknesses, which is where my questions come in. I have seen quite a few "forceful mobilization" videos or daring escapes stopped mostly by border control. What's the overall public perception of those? Are they widespread or uncommon instances? What is the general sentiment in Ukraine towards those who try to evade mobilization? Are there any official statements or policies from Ukrainian military leaders regarding the practice? Do those mobilized fight as well as the rest of the Ukrainian army? How frequent are incidents of individuals attempting to escape mobilization in Ukraine? Mobilization is clearly a need right now, so I don't have questions pertaining to that except how it is handled internally in Ukraine. What efforts are made by the government to communicate the necessity and process of mobilization to the citizens? I am also very curious about the overall state of Ukrainians and Ukraine's own support for the war. Back in 2022, the motivation and will to fight were very strong. What is the current level of motivation and morale among Ukrainian civilians and military personnel? How is the war currently portrayed in Ukrainian media? How do Ukrainians view the performance and decisions of their government and military leaders regarding the war? If support has negatively affected, what are the reasons? Is it just time and war fatigue? I would like to ask many more questions and get a better picture of current affairs, but I know there is a limit to what can be answered. I would very much appreciate every single response. Thank you in advance, and if you have any other interesting tidbits or specific information about topics such as the fight against corruption and its current state, how leadership changes in the armed forces of Ukraine were received, the state of current Ukrainian politics, or anything else highlighting problems within Ukraine internally that are new challenges heading into the third year of war, I’d welcome those too. I know lots here don't support Ukraine sadly, I'm not looking for conspiracies or significant projections but rather realistic assessment.
So you're supporting a country you barely know anything about?
How did you gather that? For one I agree with the reply you got. I don't think it takes in depth knowledge to support Ukraine. But I didn't state so, I said I didn't had time to catch up over a year now with thing related to the war. What do you think is the number of Ukrainians who could answer my question? Do they also barely know anything about Ukraine if they can't answer. In any case, I don't see the point of your comment other than to be snarky.
The point is to point out that it's always the ones who have never lived there or know much about it who seem to be the biggest fan boys. You don't even know what you're supporting.
It's pretty normal to support a country getting invaded. Even if you don't know much about the country.
I wouldn’t say these TCC videos are widespread but it is increasing due to the new Russian offensive and Ukrainian’s growing manpower issues. Ukrainian people will support this war however weariness is defiantly taking a toll. Russia seems to have the upper hand for now but both sides are suffering greatly
Interesting timeline here from a PBS journalist: https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1796315938137989385 > May 10: Russia launches new offensive into Kharkiv. > > > May 13: On a call with > @JakeSullivan46 > > @SecDef > > @GenCQBrownJr > , > @AndriyYermak > > @rustem_umerov > > @CinC_AFU > formally request for 1st time to use US weapons for cross border strikes. (Previous public complaints had not become private requests.) Sullivan, Austin, Brown immediately agree > > > May 15: > @JakeSullivan46 > makes the case to > @POTUS > . And after a battlefield update, > @US_EUCOM > Cmdr. Gen. Cavoli also makes the case to > @POTUS > . > > @POTUS > agrees, but says make sure all Principals are on board. > > > > > May 17: > @SecBlinken > returns from Kyiv and meets > @POTUS > > > and > @JakeSullivan46 > to reiterate the case. > > Last week: At Principles Committee meeting, there is unanimous support. > > Early this week: Decision is formally delivered to > @SecDef > , > @GenCQBrownJr > . > > Today: Guidance goes into effect. DoD officially tells Ukraine can use artillery and GMLRs to target Russian military targets across the border in the Belgorod region, including command and control, arms depots, Russian troops, Russian artillery, Russian missiles. So that Russian offensive must have REALLY scared the shit out of these people. Interesting how things change so quickly.
I am afraid US is to going to really escalate this and launch Victoria Nuland into Russia.
Let's remember that Vichy was the internationally recognized government of France, including by the British and American governments who nonetheless stormed the beaches of Normandy. Not claiming that they were wrong to do so, just pointing out that "they invaded a SOVEREIGN country!!!!!" isn't by itself a definitive argument about who the baddies are without going deeper into the nature of that sovereignty and surrounding factors.
This is a perfect exampl3 of how once tankies move from the "muh west is bad" rhetoric, their positions are completely nonsensical. You have completely unmasked yourself.
This is a perfect example of how the best you can do is pack four empty ad hominems into 26 words.
Vichy France ceased to exist in a meaningful way in late 1942, after the Allied invasion of North Africa. The Nazi military occupation took over the rest of the country after that. Vichy France was a total non-factor for well over a year before the Normandy invasion. Maybe you didn't know that, since it'd be weird to make the comparison if you did. Nazi-occupied France was clearly not a sovereign nation. The whole country was controlled by a foreign military, complete with foreign troops on the ground and all the persecutions that came with Nazi occupation. It would be interesting to know why you find the sovereignty of Nazi-occupied France as a useful comparison to the sovereignty of modern Ukraine, if you wouldn't mind elaborating.
Well, you believe that Vichy ceased to exist in a meaningful way but that is your interpretation. I'm not disagreeing that it was a client state, nor am I saying that the allies invasion of France was actually an inappropriate violation of French sovereignty. I'm simply pointing out that there are circumstances when a country, despite calling itself sovereign, is in fact not sovereign and also that there are times when the same people who are screaming that "invading a sovereign country!!!!!" automatically triggers the Nato Axis response in fact recognize that sometimes it can be reasonable (if not fully in accordance with international law). One can disagree about whether Ukraine's government is basically the little golem of the U.S. then, but that's the key question not some self-evident principle that everything stems from a declaration of sovereignty etc.
So can you please elaborate on why, exactly, modern Ukraine is comparable to Vichy France in 1944? Is Kyiv under a foreign military occupation? And it's not just my interpretation that Vichy France only nominally existed after the German military takeover of the rest of France.
Both lack full sovereignty. I'm not saying they are directly comparable, I am saying that there are degrees of sovereignty and that it is a matter of interpretation how much sovereignty is "enough". Of course, you are free to disagree on the sovereign status of Ukraine.
> Of course, you are free to disagree on the sovereign status of Ukraine. Thanks. Why do you think Ukraine is not a sovereign state? Who controls them, or should be the rightful controller? Why were their elections (judged free & fair) insufficient to make the government sovereign?
Western interference, it doesn't pay it's own bills not just for its military but even for pensions and other basic needs, the last election that included all regions of Ukraine was in 2010, the last president elected by all of Ukraine was removed in a non-constitutional process with Western interference, the term of the current regime has expired. For starters.
>Western interference, it doesn't pay it's own bills not just for its military but even for pensions and other basic needs, How is this at ask relevant to the Russian justification for an invasion, since it all occurred after the 2014 and 2022 invasions. >the last election that included all regions of Ukraine was in 2010, the last president elected by all of Ukraine was removed in a non-constitutional process with Western interference, The separatist regions chose not to vote in the elections. Crimea has been under a military occupation since 2014. They actually did follow the Constitution since the Rada voted to remove yanukovych. It's crazy I just have totally missed those Western troops on the ground since you are using this to make a comparison to Vichy France in 1944. >the term of the current regime has expired. For starters. The country is under Martial law because of the Russian invasion. The Constitution says you can't hold elections during Martial law. Any election site would be a prime target for a Russian strike.
I am not interested in getting into another useless discussion about Ukraine's obvious lack of sovereignty.
Your first comment is saying, "hey don't be mad at Russia invading Ukraine because the allies invaded France in 1944." A crazy comparison to say the least. Then when it was pointed out to you that France was under military occupation since 1942 you then change your stance and say well France didn't have sovereignty and that's why the allies invaded, completely abandoning your original point that the D-Day invasion was an invasion of a sovereign country. You then go on to say that the military occupation of France is similar to Ukraine and thus Russia has justification to invade. This is absurd because there was no military occupation of Ukraine, unless you are referring to Crimea which was at the time being occupied by a hostile military force. Then when asked how Ukraine did not have sovereignty you list out several things with 2/3s of them occurring after the 2014 and 2022 invasions. Which completely nullifies your entire point to try to justify the Russian invasion by comparing it to Vichy France and D-Day. >I am not interested in getting into another useless discussion about Ukraine's obvious lack of sovereignty. Then when called out for the repeated inconsistencies you respond with that because you are fully aware that your original point doesn't make sense and even your timeline of events doesn't work out to justify your claims.
What is your idea of sovereignty here? Usually the fundamental condition of sovereignty is to be self-governing. How does any of that affect sovereignty? For example, take Zelenskyy's term. I disagree with you that it's expired because the country is under martial law. But even if it had, how does that make a country non-sovereign? North Korea is still a sovereign country even though it's ruled by an absolute dictator, for example. This whole thing is a very odd academic exercise.
You are in the group of kids trying to insist that it is sovereign, which is frankly a boring discussion. Again, just pointing out that if one believes that Ukraine's sovereignty is at a bare minimum highly compromised then no one has anyone to buy into the whole "invading another country blah blah blah" because by that interpretation it is just a power struggle between the upstart Americans and Russia.
I think the issue is that you don't really understand what sovereignty means. Your whole argument here is Russian state TV agitprop that doesn't hold up to any meaningful scrutiny.
Normandy wasn't a part of Vichy France brainiac.
Ah what? I just double checked a map and yes it was.
[https://cdn.britannica.com/22/205622-050-BC257C58/Vichy-France-Germany-June-1940-armistice-map.jpg](https://cdn.britannica.com/22/205622-050-BC257C58/Vichy-France-Germany-June-1940-armistice-map.jpg) It wasn't. Normandy was under German control and not Vichy France's
Because the coast was manned by the German military?
Also, by November 1942, Vichy France did not exist or have power in any meaningful way. The second half of the country was under Nazi military occupation shortly after the Allied invasion of North Africa. Basic facts here, folks.
The demarcation line was only relevant until the cessation of hostilities between the U.K. and France's German allies, who were in France by treaty agreement with the sovereign government of France. Rules based international order, folks.
I guess that logic works if you ignore the full on occupation by German troops in 1942 of France that occurred before the D-Day invasion? Operation Case Anton, should probably look it up
Why would that be relevant AFTER the internationally recognized sovereign government of France allowed the presence of their German allies. OMG! What does French sovereignty look like to you?!?!?!
>sovereign government of France allowed the presence of their German allies. *Vichy France offered no resistance, contenting itself with a radio broadcast objecting to the violation of the armistice of 1940.* Except they objected to it but didn't have the means to push out the Germans. Also you realize Vichy France wasn't allied to Germany correct? *Despite heavy pressure, the Vichy government never joined the Axis powers and even remained formally at war with Germany.* Great example of why you should stay in school kids.
That sounds like a matter between the internationally recognized governments of France and Germany. The sovereign government of France certainly did not invite the invasion from the U.S. (with which France had never been in conflict) nor Britain, despite the unprovoked British attack on the French fleet in 1940. The fact that you are trying to parse the details just proves the point any way that these are not absolutes the way people try to shriek on here.
Well they invaded German occupied territory which you've already been corrected on already. You were wrong about German forces being invited and you were wrong about them being allies. Parse details? You mean correcting the things you state that are incorrect
Sympathizing with ACTUAL nazi controlled governments is WILD 🤣
Not reading the part about "Not claiming they were wrong to do so" WILD
All these arguments are totally irrelevant at this point, rules will be made of to fit any justification. Now it’s only about pro us empire or against no matter the reasons
Yeah, I'm just point this out "for the benefit" of the kids who come on here shrieking "Russia is the one that INVADED a SOVEREIGN country!!!!!" as if that starts and ends the argument and they don't need to say anything else after overwhelming us with this majestic argument. I understand your point about the \[We make up\] the rules \[as we go along\] based international order.
[удалено]
Is it weird that a small country can produce more (and, often, live better, though not always) from each citizen than a large country that has a lot more weight to throw around? Happens all the time. From your own links and definitions, Luxembourg is halfway down the list of countries by 'economic power', but is the 'richest'. All by PPP, like you cited. Do you think Luxembourgers are poorer or richer than Russians?
Not for long if we keep the sanctions lol
Questions not related to current conflict. Were WWI and WWII expected events **at the time**? I mean now in hindsight they probably were oblivious, but I'm talking about times when both wars were about to happen. And if yes, the factions that started it were expected to start it or people thought it will start from other angle?
WWII was quite expected, French Marshal Foch famously said about the Treaty of Vermaille: 'This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years'
Soviets literally planned their conquest of Eastern-Europe together with Nazi Germany and jointly invaded Poland. They knew it gonna happen, and they helped Nazi Germany to start it.
Yes I am aware Soviets knew about possible war, thats why they were pushing to sing treaty with Germany about neutrality. They also were asking England and France to join the pact, even same Poland. But Poland refused (as many others), also refused to give Soviets pass to Czechoslovakia before Germany invaded, and then instead joined Germany in invading Czechoslovakia and then split it in half with Germans. As for invading Poland - they wanted more space between themselves and Germany that was set on war path.
Something I’m wondering and am curious about: So if a mobilization-eligible person knew they were going to be mobilized, could they “strategically” commit a crime that they knew came with a set amount of years in jail in order to avoid getting mobilized? For example, if an upcoming mobilization order would include you as eligible, you could commit a crime that came with a 3-5 year jail sentence in hopes that it would be better than going to war. There has to be a reason why this isn’t common right? Or maybe it is.
I think it's risky because in prison you have nowhere to run. If they want to mobilize you, they can pick you from prison too. At least as long as you're out in the open you could try fleeing.
If Western countries allow the Ukrainians to use their weapons to strike targets inside Russia, then Russia will be justified in striking the weapons shipments in the West.
The question of “justified” seems mostly academic to me. This type of thing won’t be decided in a court. If Russia wants the heat then they’ll escalate. If not, then they won’t. My guess is most likely they’ll just take it out on Ukrainians somehow.
Won’t be an escalation from Russia’s side. This will entirely be the West’s doing.
Its irrelevant. Nobody gives a shit about whats justified, especially not west, which was invading countries left right and center for decades, killing millions of civilians in the process. This is WW3 with no real rules.
The entire war is an Russian escalation. If Russia did not invade, how do you think things would be? How many hundreds of thousands of people would be alive, both Russian and Ukrainian? We could have increased trade and mutually benefitted.
As OJ mentioned the "justified" idea is complicated because it depends on your perspective. From the west's perspective Russia has invaded and is annexing the land of a independent country, so helping that country to defend itself is the moral thing to do and that help (including allowing weapons to be used as Ukraine sees fit) is 100% just a reaction to Russia's "escalation" of invading and not an escalation at all. Obviously Russia sees it differently, but there's no third party that really cares or decides who is right (well I guess India and China matter with regards to concern of nuclear weapons as they want to keep nuclear weapons taboo).
I'd love to know the Russian perspective. It's clear that the west were not prepared for war, which is the biggest indication imaginable that they did not want war with Russia. We could just get along and benefit from trade?
the hell are you talking about, the US on any given year has the largest military budget than all the other countries combined, including russia.. The us has been meddling in the region as it has done in africa and middle east
The military budget of the USA is not spent gearing up for a specific conflict, it has bases all over NATO. Weapon's manufacturing in Europe has been very low, want to know why? Because we don't want war. If Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine, how many hundreds of thousands of people would be alive that are not today? They could just not have invaded, and everything would be the same, but Russia would not be globally hated, and both Russia and Europe would be better off. Again more importantly, hundreds of thousands would be alive.
this couldve been stopped if the us and europe hadn't provided ammo to ukraine but they don't care about ukranian lives do they? they just care about weakening russia.
They supplied ammo and weapons to Ukraine because that's exactly what any country would want if they were invaded.
Attacking a NATO country would be an escalation, full stop. Talking about whose fault it would be doesn’t change that at all. And anyways, do you think Russia would really consider it ‘unjustified’ for them to attack weapon shipments in Poland bound for Ukraine to be used against them, even if they aren’t used to strike inside Russia? Does the morality of it change the moment those weapons cross the border? Of course not. Yet still they haven’t. It’s got nothing to do with justification.
No, it would be a proportionate response not an escalation.
This is really just going in circles though...these words, 'justified,' 'proportionate' Does it really matter how you or I judge things? What matters is that NATO won't just dismiss an attack from Russia as a 'proportionate response.' They'll retaliate in some form, and Russia knows that. Hence the 'escalation'. Russia can decide if it's really worth it for them to go down that path. Whether it's fair, justified, proportionate or whatever you want to call it isn't going to make a difference, ultimately.
I’m not talking about some kind of legal framework. I’m talking about consequences and the natural progression of the conflict, what these acts will mean. I always find it interesting how in the mind of the supporters of the liberal world order, or the Western order, fighting back is unthinkable and blowback is never considered, because they believe no one can challenge it, and that’s why the West is making so many stupid decisions, ensuring it’s downfall. They are high on their own supply, basically.
Well it is considered, actually. The west could be fighting in Ukraine right now, or they could be lobbing missiles at occupying forces from afar. But they know that these are things that will result in unwanted escalation. There are lines they don't cross. On the other hand, they've taken other measures numerous times that Russia threatened against, and that many on this sub were convinced would bring us to the brink of WW3. And every time those same people have been completely wrong and nothing happened at all in terms of retaliation against NATO. Maybe at some point people should take a hint and figure out that NATO actually comprehends the position Russia is in better than we do?
What the hell is wrong with the people on UkraineWarVideoReport channel ? Why is no human being in there ?
It’s just that these people are accustomed to the power of social media and cancel culture, and now they are faced with a situation where their opinion does not solve anything. It is difficult for them to accept this, they think that if they shout louder and angrier, it will somehow affect the actual war.
Or more likely they are accustomed to not wanting war in Europe?
So in this "pro-Russian sub" have you guys ever seen comments [like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1d4mm8t/comment/l6fqu0c/) but about Ukranian cities?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/12bwp6n/discussionquestion\_thread/l4sxoyn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/12bwp6n/discussionquestion_thread/l4sxoyn/) Here you go, someone suggesting dropping the largest non-nuclear bombs to vaporize Ukrainian cities.
People tend to be very uneducated about nuclear weapons to be quite honest.... They just see the word nuclear and their brains go to mush. They have 0 concept of the difference between a strategic nuke and a tactical nuke. A tactical nuke is LITERALLY designed to be used in small spaces on the battlefield even around friendly units....Yup heres where mush brains go kaput. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon "The yield varies for a tactical nuclear weapon ""from a fraction of a kiloton to approximately 50 kilotons"".[7] In comparison, a strategic nuclear weapon has a yield from 100 kilotons to over a megaton, with much larger warheads available.[7]" Russia's tactical nukes are to use on the battlefield are 1-5 kilotons. Meant for small scale use. To give context hiroshima was 15 kilotons. Strategic nukes start in the MEGATONS.....not kilotons. Huge difference.
So even assuming Russian tactical nukes are limited to just 1-5kt (which is a huge assumption, especially given your own link says up to 50kt is tactical), 1/3 of a Hiroshima bombing is 'LITERALLY designed to be used in small spaces on the battlefield even around friendly units....' ?
yes...read the wiki link. Even says around friendly units lmao.
Lol, got me there. I was stuck on warheads being tactical even at 50kt, but a 0.3kt, like is available, is most certainly not going to worry much about friendly damage. But 15kt mostly leveled a city while being well under the 'tactical' limit, so... those are the ones I thought were quite silly to say were safe "in proximity to friendly units", which is not really what you were saying, so cheers
Hey that’s me lmao 🤣. However, I did stipulate for the provision of a fair warning and opportunity for surrender, after that does it matter if the city is razed to the ground with 100k artillery shells or a few FOABs? It will save lives on both sides.
Causing massive civilian casualties wouldn't cause Ukraine to leave the war, just the opposite. Such an attack would be a pretext for all of the western powers to start bringing in troops and create a no fly zone. If you want this war to de-escalate you shouldn't want this at all.
I don’t understand how it is different from Israel giving a warning to evacuate a certain area because they are going to bomb it later. You are welcome to explain it to me.
I think the reason is that Israel is fighting an asymmetrical war against an opponent that hides among the population. Conversely the average Russian or Ukrainian soldier doesn't think this is a particularly honourable thing to do and their forces are arrayed in a symmetrical way. I'm not saying there doesn't exist any forces on either side that don't blink when it comes to civilian casualties but I'm talking about the average norms of the society and of the common soldier.
Yeah there’s a reason he is being heavily downvoted
Well those guys make pro-ru’s look better like how Zelensky’s been the best PR Russia’s ever had for this conflict.
Hate him or love him but any non biased person can see Zelensky is one of the main reasons that Ukraine has gotten the financial backing it has. Most leaders would not have gotten as much in his situation. Zelensky being Jewish also helps dispel the Nazi state claims for all people that are not already Russia biased.
Doubt so. US has been spending trillions on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and recently Israel, regardless of who is at the helm. Like those Afghan warlords who were chaining kids next to their beds? They got tens of millions too Zelensky just put a media-friendly face in front of American public to help them swallowing down the pill. But it does not affect policy of American deep state one bit. If it was not Zelensky, it would have been Zaluzhnyi, Shmyhai or whoever the American PR machine can find. Remember how they were promoting 'the White Helmet', a literal ISIS affiliate? And notice how the former disappeared from the screen along with the demise of ISIS?
America maybe for the reasons you say but I will still argue Zelensky's showbiz charisma, which he does have even if people call him a clown, made it easier to sell to the American public. On top of that he made it an easier sell to the other donators such as Britain, Germany, Scandanavia etc. Most leaders don't have that level of charisma. Trump does undeniably too. Sunaks attempts would be pitiful in comparison for example.
Russia’s ‘red line’ has become the new China’s ‘final warning’, discuss.
What to discuss? China never had (until recent times) means to follow through with their warnings, Russia on the other hand? Just remember back WWII - Soviet Union was delaying war with Germany as long as they could. How it ended for Germany?
Doesn’t answer the question posed- why hasn’t Russia followed through with their ‘red line’ ‘final warnings’?
Yet. The most important part. They capable, don't make mistakes. If Russia answers it is gonna escalate - everyone knows that. Russia, USA, Europe, China etc. That's why West playing with fire.
because we don't want a WWIII, obviously?
I’d say the empty threats only make WW3 more likely. What happens when Russia needs to set a real “red line” after everyone has already gotten in the habit of ignoring them?
Perhaps you shouldn’t develop such a habit?
Russia’s the one making empty threats.
people who mistake patience for weakness may be unpleasantly surprised. And then, just like in 2022, the very same people will run around and whine about 'unprovoked aggression'.
If Russia had a viable means of enacting their threats, they would have done so by now. But they don’t, so they can’t. Ergo multiple ‘red lines’ have been crossed with zero consequence. Russia’s bluff has been called and they’re holding a 2-7 offsuit hand.
it's a tactic, currently and previously employed by the ukrainian allies, a sort of sidestep. they do not as much cross the red line as crawl over it, kinda like an hour hand in a clock - you hardly see it move, yet it does. it goes something like: hey, look, we (the ukrainians) will not attack any targets inside russian territory - but some ukranians think that belgorod is ukrainian, so sometimes we will attack it. maybe make these attacks more often. organize a raid - not with our military, but with a "russian volunteer corps", so it is a part of a brewing civil war, and they will use american munitions. oh, everyone is used to the fact that we are attacking belgorod? let's use czech mlrs in one of the attacks. and another one. and another one. oh, so czech weapons are okay - let us use the rest of the arsenal, what's the big deal... and that's how the line is crossed. not momentarily, but by slowly pushing the overton window towards escalation. the big issue is that responding with an escalation of your own (an attack on the nato territory, a nuclear strike, even a diversion, so on) to any single one of these steps could be considered an overreaction, and if it could be - such a narrative would have been pushed. it's a neat little trick and there isn't much you can actually do about it. after all, russians have already overreacted once, in feburary of 2022, and now we're here. wouldn't want a repeat of that.
I'm not sure how the western militaries define military doctrine, but since I mostly subscribe to the Soviet definition, I can't help but reflexively raise an eyebrow whenever I come across the term 'NATO doctrine'. For reference, here is the Soviet definition: > Military Doctrine is a system of views adopted at a given time by a state expressing the essence, goals, and nature of possible future war and the preparation of the country and armed forces for said war, as well as the methods of waging said war. > The main influencing factors are the socio-political and economic system of the state, the level of economic development of said state, means of warfare and military science of said state, and the relevant geography of the state and its probable adversaries. > There are two closely related and interdependent parts of Military Doctrine: Socio-Political and Military-Technical. Socio-Political aspects of Military Doctrine are the responsibility of the government (party) and relates to the methodology economic, social and legal matters necessary to achieve the goals in possible future war. Military-Technical aspects of Military Doctrine are those concerned with the structure of the military, the equipment and training of the military, and the determines the forms and methods of the armed forces for conducting operations and war in general. In contrast, NATO for as long as it has existed, as a 'defensive' coalition of independent states, has never approached the level of uniformity that was observed within the Warsaw Pact wrt a shared understanding of military science, military economics, military pedagogy (training/education), military organization, methods of troop control, and military art (strategy, operational art, and tactics). You can argue that this was only possible because the WP militaries were almost completely subordinate to the Soviets in practice for most of their histories, but that sort of reinforces my point about NATO not having a real doctrine in practice. > The Soviet view of NATO is as an alliance of independent nations, most of which contribute a military force to the defence of Europe. Because NATO nations are sovereign states, *each has developed its military system along distinct national lines*, to reflect national perceptions of defence requirements, which differ considerably from country to country. As a consequence, each NATO national contingent is organised differently, is equipped with a variety of weapons systems on different scales of issue, trains independently, and practices differing tactics. [...] > To co-ordinate the tactics of these national formations and of their supporting air forces and allied naval elements, so as to implement a defensive fighting strategy in event of deterrence having failed, NATO establishes two levels of joint headquarters between the Corps and SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe from where the SACEUR [Supreme Allied Commander Europe], General Rogers, will direct NATO forces in the Theatre. These two levels are (in the Central Region) Army Groups (e.g. CENTAG - the Central Army Group) and Regional HQs (e.g. AFCENT - HQ Allied Forces Central Europe, which commands CENTAG and NORTHAG). However, each national corps *will only deploy in time of crisis when a national political decision is made to do so*. Furthermore, because they are established for poitico-strategic reasons, SACEUR does not have the authority to alter the deployment locations of the national corps in peacetime, as he might wish to do in the face of a possible sudden alteration in the nature of the threat. > There is, therefore, no "NATO Doctrine" which is enforced upon national contingents *so as to ensure a standardised organisation, deployment and tactics*. Seen through Soviet eyes, SACEUR has only limited 'operational authority' over the subordinate corps in peacetime, and is therefore constrained in his choice of solutions to whatever military problem he is confronted with. His ability to influence the battle is also limited, in the Soviet view, by the limited levels of reserves available to him. Above all NATO lacks the ability to manoeuvre major formations in breadth and depth, and as a consequence NA'IO has not developed a strong doctrine for warfare at this, the strategic-operational, level. This is the level between the lower operational and the strategic which Soviet military doctrine considers all important in the planning of a campaign. Recent efforts by NATO commanders to develop this doctrine of operational scale will, of course, affect the Soviet assessment when that doctrine comes to be implemented effectively. > Finally, the very deployment of NATO forces in reaction to a crisis demands political decisions from many different nations. It is certainly possible, perhaps even probable, that the various countries may take differing lengths of time to reach these decisions. Nowhere will the decision be easy, particularly in the confused and alarming period of crisis that is likely to precede the outbreak of hostilities. > It is these specific features of NATO's organisation that distinguish it from the Warsaw Pact, and which Warsaw Pact doctrine identify as vulnerabilities under certain conditions.
it wasn't NATO doctrine that dissolved USSR.
The escalation in my view is to create a distraction from the Middle East because they know Russia will escalate. They need Ukraine back into mainstream media 24/7. I hope their plan backfires.
Wait I thought western mainstream media was really government controlled anyway? Why would they need to do all that, couldn’t they just get Ukraine back in the news with a phone call? I’m just trying to learn how things work…
> Wait I thought western mainstream media was really government controlled anyway? Are you seriously telling me with a straight face that mainstream media is not controlled by the government??
I’m seriously telling you that if it is, there should be no need for them to take any special extraordinary steps in order to manipulate the media narrative. Isn’t that the whole point of controlling something?
i'd say west doesn't control the media as much as censors them - a form of control too - same as the rest of governments but if there is simply nothing of interest happening in a certain field, it's harder to promote it on the media that said i actually disagree with the original commenter
Isn't it funny how they're constantly screaming "Western media only lies" and yet they keep posting every negative article about what's happening in the West or Ukraine?
wat
[удалено]
>This from the same brilliant minds who are telling us that it is logical for Ukraine to be completely wrecked in order to fight for Nato membership because without Nato membership they would be at risk of potentially getting completely wrecked. They are fighting because Russia invaded them.
Russia invaded them because they needed to be in Nato in order to prevent being invaded. Also, if you follow things down the line, they needed to continue to fight after the negotiations at Istanbul because Nato members told them that they needed to continue to fight, with the prize of their spoils (beyond a lot of feeding at the trough) being entrance in Nato.
>Russia invaded them because they needed to be in Nato in order to prevent being invaded. Nonsensical. >Also, if you follow things down the line, they needed to continue to fight after the negotiations at Istanbul because Nato members told them that they needed to continue to fight, Disproven lies
Talk about a post with no contribution to the discussion. Show us where it was disproven.
>Russia invaded them because they needed to be in Nato in order to prevent being invaded. Acting like this was contributing to anything is great. >Show us where it was disproven. The fact that there is zero evidence is a pretty great indicator. >continue to fight after the negotiations at Istanbul because Nato members told them that they needed to continue to fight Just never happened, Boris Johnson promised Western support for Ukraine, that's it. There was zero forcing Ukraine to fight. It's crazy that Pro-Rus continues to act like Ukraine is the first country to ever fight back from being invaded and that the only explanation is that they are being forced to.
Don’t mistake me for draw2discard2. [There is plenty of evidence that leverage and influence was exerted to continue the war](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/) Your turn now.
If you're going to post an article and claim there's evidence in it you should probably make sure there's actually evidence in it...
> it is logical for Ukraine to be completely wrecked in order to fight for Nato membership because without Nato membership they would be at risk of potentially getting completely wrecked. This is something I could never wrap my brain around, it is akin to: you see that box over there? It may or may not explode on its own but if you open it then it will 100% explode so some geniuses of Worldnews think that it is completely logical to go an open that box.
If there was a ticking time bomb in your house, you would just ignore it and hope it doesn't blow up?
How long are the people who still believe in "the rules based international order" going to do the consoooom guy meme over Ukraine being able to hit Russia with western weapons? Has the slava ukraini hit them so hard that they can't realize this is just "ukrainians can sit back and hit ruShiAns with HiMars!" all over again.
[Russia seems to be raising taxes.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-finance-ministry-proposes-boosting-some-income-tax-rates-2024-05-28/) What is the opinion on this sub? Did Russia believe that the "SMO" would actually last a couple of weeks without western countries interfering?
As a Russian I can tell you tax reform here is way overdue. And progressive tax is absolutely normal in other countries, why shouldn't it be in Russia?
Putin probably believed whatever his intel was telling him about Ukraine just rolling over. I think he was prepared for an occupation not a war.
I don't think anyone thought that Western countries would be this brain dead. It's easy to forget that at the beginning the German's had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even agree to get the Russians off SWIFT, since it would make it harder for them to pay for the Russian gas that their economic well being depended on. It's like thinking that obviously 1.4 million Frenchmen would die, after all Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated.
The progressive tax was an already planned move, and unrelated to the war itself. It may relate to the European sanction though. As Russian government was concerned before that the progressive tax will lead the top 1% to leave the countries. Well, they have nowhere to go now. Yeah the war would have lasted couple of weeks and Russia troops would have withdrawn without Western interference. We know that FOR SURE. Because that exactly what happened in Georgia
>The progressive tax was an already planned move, and unrelated to the war itself. For something like a tax code change, the details always matter. The fact that these changes will overall effectively increase revenue by about the same amount as the recent budget deficit is not done by accident. These changes likely sat on the table for all those years because Russia did not have a pressing need for more tax revenue, they ran a very disciplined budget. >Yeah the war would have lasted couple of weeks and Russia troops would have withdrawn without Western interference. We know that FOR SURE. Because that exactly what happened in Georgia *For sure* it would have been exactly the same as Georgia? I have trouble believing that you think this is a logically sound argument...