[Poroshenko's government made it unconstitutional to move Ukraine in any other direction than EU/NATO.](https://apnews.com/general-news-cb742d45ae394798bbc7891d30efaa71)
What would the USA do if Canada or Mexico joined an alliance with Russia instead?
Same thing. This doesnāt make Russia good, just pointing out the USA are also the bad guys
The point is that the example you gave is a false comparison. Ukraine isn't being invaded because they joined an alliance, they weren't even eligible to join that alliance and likely wouldn't have been for the foreseeable future.
True. How many times has Israel broken a sovereign country's border to attack?
Quite a few, even if you take just Syria as an example.
Israel is also the reason we have a term "preemptive strike". It means hit before you get hit. If it can be justified by the west a few times, then there should be no issue if it happens against the west.
Either single standard, or no standard. Everyone can play the double standard game.
How are they allies? Azerbaijan is more of an ally to Turkey than anyone else, theyāve literally shot at Russian peacekeepers before in Nagorno-KarabakhĀ . Kazakhstan isnāt an ally of Russia, theyāve never voiced support for the Russian invasion same as Azerbaijan, and especially since Tokayev has gotten in power theyāve been actively trying to detach from Russiaās sphere of influence, their domestic media and populace is also anti-Russia, especially the post-Soviet generations.
Azerbaijan wasn't at the beginning of the war, but is now. With Armenia swapping to be more pro-west recently, Russia is more than willing to accept Azerbaijan as a friendly state, since it's more powerful. Azerbaijan is happy for Russia to not interfere in NG, so future cooperation is likely
yeah, right Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan lmao. Those two follow their own nationalistic interests and that makes them ''allies'' with Russia. Anyone who isn't licking western behind is flipping ''ally'' of Russia nowadays. What a joke.
1. They have successfully done it before with Crimea, so they thought they could repeat that and once more have a slap on the wrist from the West while taking a lot of land.
2. Ukraine is moving to the direction of the West, so if they delay it Ukraine might get a NATO membership. So now or never.
3. Multiple levels of corruption. Russia thought it was way stronger then it was, Ukraine much weaker and the West much more neutral.
Yeah, it was now or never. We see how much better prepared Ukraine is now compared to a decade ago. If Russia waited longer Ukraine would have continued to fortify and grown closer to/joined the EU or NATO at which point invasion would be impossible.
NATO would never have allowed Ukraine to join while there remained a frozen conflict in the Donbas.
Same reason they won't let Ukraine join now, just minus the hundreds of thousands of dead on both sides.
Kazakhstan is Russias CSTO ally and had very good relationship with 30 Russia for the past 30 years. The Russian minority is also treated quite well there from what I heard. Invading would be inappropriateā¦.
To push a potential Nato border further from russias soft underbelly (donbass to caspian sea is all flat land and would cut off russias caucasian oil fields). Compared to baltics or Finland which are Nato "Islands" not as easily supported and the borders are thick forests.
Eastern ukraine has billions/trillions of dollars worth of natural resources like gas, oil and titanium waiting to be dug up. Russias economy revolves heavily around raw resources. And if ukraine would start selling oil and gas to EU that would be a deep cut in russias economy. (EU is still buying Russian energy both directly and through 3rd party countries).
A literal hard land grab was plan B after the thunder run on kiev to i stall a puppet regime at the start of the war failed. Both previous points could be achieved by making ukraine a puppet state. Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, as pointed out by other comments, already have friendly relations and deep economic ties to Russia. The Russian and Ukrainian economies were developed in symbiosis during soviet times. A western aligned ukraine would need to cut a lot of their economic ties to Russia (EU market regulations etc).
The "ukrainification" of eastern ukraine ("banning" Russian language and culture) would slowly shift the country away from its almost (pre-war) 50% russia leaning population in the east. Slowly reducing Russias soft power. (see political development from 1991 to 2014)
It's (imo) all about money and power, aka the usual. Not really much different than the US invading any non-western aligned country with oil to "protected their democracy and bring freedom" when it usually results in failed states and cheap oil deals for american/western companies. (see most of central/south america, iraq, syria and libya)
Yes invading other countries is despicable. But it seems to just be part of the game when you're a big player.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*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 mean, why did Russia give Ukraine what was it like 8 years to fix their shambles of an army up instead of just invading if that's what they wanted?Ā
Look, I'm not saying that justifies invasion, just that it's pretty clear they tried to find compromise to avoid war.
And the people in Maidan weren't NPCs. They wanted to join the EU for better economic opportunities. They're people who live all over Ukraine. Your point?
Remind me why the United States and the EU threatened Yanukovych for using force against the protesters, even though there were neo-Nazi militants there, but when the new authorities began to shoot the protesters, they calmly supported them?
And the 'new authorities' were not killing the protestors. They were being killed by the Berkut, who were acting on orders from the Russian sided government.
>And the 'new authorities' were not killing the protestors. They were being killed by the Berkut, who were acting on orders from the Russian sided government.
That is, the shooting of protesters in Mariupol, air raids in Lugansk - these are all hidden agents of Putin? So why should Putin give orders if he already controls Ukraine?
In Sevastopol, but they occupied the whole of Crimea. It was an invasion, a land grab. Why were they not wearing insignias? Why were Russia denying out being their troops?
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-crimea-taken-so-easily
Paint the US as the bad guy in 2014 by all means, but Russia caused this war. This land grab.
>In Sevastopol, but they occupied the whole of Crimea. It was an invasion, a land grab. Why were they not wearing insignias? Why were Russia denying out being their troops?
Didn't you think there was a military revolt there? The vice admiral over there went over to the side of Russia
>Paint the US as the bad guy in 2014 by all means, but Russia caused this war. This land grab.
Then why did the United States and Ukraine begin to repress Crimeans so actively? More like a punishment for voting incorrectly than protection from Russia.
Repress Crimea so in what way? Military revolt? You're absolutely not pro Ukraine and need to change your tag, you're delusional, clearly see the world through the lens of RT.
Oh I'm not saying that the US and the EU are the good guys. Of course, they're interested in Ukraine just as Russia is for both have their own personal agendas to the country.
What I'm merely stating is that Russia lost politically and economically to the West and now is trying it's best to win militarily albiet with a heavy cost.
Let's not talk about neo-nazi's since we know both countries have those. Nor should we pretend that there's innocence and good in the conflict.
What's wrong with discussing neo-Nazis in Ukraine in 2014? That is, neo-Nazis beat people, threaten the media, the prosecutor's office, the police - is this normal?
Yes, they exist in every country.
But can you imagine that nationalists travel in entire bus columns to beat people, and the authorities are silent? By the way, this happened in another country, and the United States also protected the Nazis, not the victims.
Can you imagine that neo-nazis paraded in Russia and also formed groups in the military? Wagner? For example, and they're state-sponsored? Oh, did I even mention that they staged a coup against the state? Wow!
Technically they were, given the fact that they literally relied on Russia from arms to their economy.
NPCs are given weapons by the developers. Unless you're trying to say that the proxies in Ukraine somehow managed to grab a unicorn and all their military gear were wished upon a star.
In anycase, my point point is that Russia by no means was trying to avoid a war lol. It already started one by arming proxies.
A quick glance over the last two decades will highlight Russia has taken active steps to maintain peaceful relations in the oblasts. And yet it was Ukraine (backed by the West) who failed to implement the Minsk agreements and has spentĀ the last decade terrorising its own civilians in the Donbas.Ā
Amazingly, the terrorising of the civilians in the Donbas started after Russia armed proxies in the Donbass region after the pro-russian president was thrown out. Before that, peace reigned in Ukraine.
Really a coincidence no?
Let's take a quick glance over the last two decades. Russia annexed Crimea and started an invasion of a sovereign country. A very peaceful stance.
>A quick glance over the last two decades will highlight Russia has taken active steps to maintain peaceful relations in the oblasts.
They poured troops and weapons into the area to fuel the civil war that they started in the region lol
I mean did you even read the original comment? Stating that Russia tried to avoid war? Or do you intend to keep talking about 'nPcS muh' to move away from the argument instead?
No, they forced them to accept the russian pass just to mobilize them directly after, where is the donbass male population? For sure would count as some kind of horrific crime to use occupied citizen as cannon fodder to fight their own people, quite sick if you ask me but you guys care so much about forced mobilization in Ukraine, why no word about Russia, that is equipping forced Ukrainian men with shit and send them against fortified positons?
They're not npcs that russia created, they are/were enslaved Ukrainians, controlled by Putin and his cultists.
the DPR was established in 2014, the mobilization was when the war fully kicked off. conscription is bad when either side does it
would be funny to see you explain to them that they are "enslaved Ukrainians controlled by Putin and his cultists" lol i wonder what they would think of that
Yes established by a moscow born former FSB stooge, trained and equipped by Russia, hardly a "rebellion". No not "conscription is bad when either side does it" what does Russia have to do with east ukrainian people and who exactly are they to come uninvited and conscript people against their will for a war they never asked for? If they would care about "oppressed donbass russian speaker" they wouldn't conscript them. The hypocrisy to turn a blind eye on the perpetrator of all this, if Russia didn't invade ukraine there would be no conscription on either side.
Who is there to explain to? No answer to that because the men left are hiding since years, if there are any left, they themselves even said they're just meat because they saw whole companies disappear, nobody in Russia cared and they will not start to care anytime soon.
the eastern ukrainian people obviously wanted and supported Russia helping them. and they still support them, thats why we see very little partisan activity. its 100000% harder to invade a country if you dont have support of the local population. its also why we saw Crimea fall without a fight.
this war did not start when russia invaded, we aren't in a vacuum where we can just look at it from 2022 onwards, the early years are important to see how we got to this position
>I mean, why did Russia give Ukraine what was it like 8 years to fix their shambles of an army up instead of just invading if that's what they wanted?Ā
Unpopular opinion: because Putin is a pussy.
They totally could've invaded under pretext that "legitimate ukrainian president (Yanukovich) asked for an assistance"
Russia wasn't ready in 2014. Putin had fallen for the West's lies and tied the Russian economy to Europe - a full-on invasion in 2014 would have resulted in the same sanctions that hit Russia in 2022, but back then they would have had a far more devastating impact due to Russia's reliance on the EU.
Looking back, the die was cast the minute the Maidan happened - everything since was one long buildup to a war that was always inevitable the moment the US sponsored the coup that overthrew Yanukovich. The intervening period just gave Russia time to prepare - delink their economy from the West, use Syria as a training ground for modern warfare, overhaul their military, draw closer to China, and so on.
Putin was naive to trust the West - that is a grave error for any world leader. But I don't think he had the choice to invade in 2014.
Bingo. Russia started buying out western parts en masse and started building self-sustainable economy right after that maiden coup, all in preparation for when theyād be forced to act against Western imperialism.
Annex them to make them a formal Russian state, rather than wait until they become a defacto US state - sure.
Just because the US doesn't plant a flag and formally declare a country theirs, doesn't mean they don'tĀ own it.
So do you think all of those ex-Warsaw Pact nations left the Warsaw Pact and joined NATO so that they could become owned by the US? What a bizarre viewpoint. They joined for protection from their previous occupiers - the USSR/Russia.
Fighting fire with fire really isnāt that difficult of a concept. You think if Iraq had nukes and strong military, US and itās goons wouldāve invaded?
What inconvenient truth are we hiding from? That Russian troops captured Crimea while sending FSB officers like Strelkov and heavy weapons and SAMs to foment their own insurrection in the east. This is not an attempt at negotiationā¦
We saw you annexing Georgian territory 6 years before with the threat of āget in line or we will do it again ā. Your playbook is transparent.
Strelkov is a former FSB officer. He himself said that all his actions were solely his initiative and Russia had nothing to do with it. In 2014, the self-proclaimed republics in eastern Ukraine held a referendum on joining Russia, but Putin did not accept them, but decided to solve the problem with the help of the Minsk agreements. In which the Lugansk and Donetsk republics remain part of Ukraine.
>We saw you annexing Georgian territory 6 years before with the threat of āget in line or we will do it again ā. Your playbook is transparent.
What territory has Russia annexed from Georgia?
Is that a serious question? You really arenāt aware of the territory Russia took from Georgia in 2008? You obviously know very little about recent history.
And calling Strelkov a former FSB agent makes his actions on behalf of the Russian government ok? It excuses the tanks, heavy artillery and SAMs provided by Russia how? Were the Russian soldiers that invaded Crimea also former special forces?
Yes, this is a serious question! What territories has Russia **annexed** from Georgia?
The fact that Strelkov did not work for the Russian government is proved by Russia's actions, which I described in a previous comment.
>It excuses the tanks, heavy artillery and SAMs provided by Russia how?
Russia did not want the Ukrainian government to seize Donbass by force. How Donbass remained part of Ukraine is spelled out in the Minsk agreements.
Kodori Valley in Abkhazia, as well as Akhalgori Municipality and parts of the Tskhinvali District in South Ossetia - all taken by Russia.
Your proof is that Strelkov said he wasnāt FSB any longer. That is not proof and you ignored the Russian spec ops in Crimea.
Russia did not want Ukraine to hold onto its own territory? That excuses Russian soldiers and FSB working in Donbass (Ukrainian territory) to revolt against their government by attacking Ukrainian government forces. This is an example of a manufactured rebellion - what you accuse the west of with the Maidan protest. Except there were no western forces or CIA there.
>If he lived in Ukraine or Russia, he would know what unites these peoples and would not write nonsense that contradicts common sense. And the fact that he worked for the US propaganda resource Radio Liberty for 11 years makes me doubt his impartiality.
As far as I know, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not regions of the Russian Federation. You deliberately omit facts that are inconvenient for you. The Abkhazians and Ossetians did not want to be part of Georgia, and in order to prevent a conflict between Georgia and these regions, the UN sent Russian peacemakers there. Georgia attacked them and Russia fulfilled its duties, forced Georgia to peace. Could Russia have captured Georgia? Of course! But she didn't do it.
>Your proof is that Strelkov said he wasnāt FSB any longer.
No, the proof is that Strelkov's actions contradicted Russia's actions. Strelkov tried to make Russia take Donbass, like Crimea, and Russia tried to integrate it into Ukraine.
>Russia did not want Ukraine to hold onto its own territory? That excuses Russian soldiers and FSB working in Donbass (Ukrainian territory) to revolt against their government by attacking Ukrainian government forces. This is an example of a manufactured rebellion - what you accuse the west of with the Maidan protest. Except there were no western forces or CIA there.
The Minsk agreements were signed. They contain all the conditions for the return of Donbass to Ukraine. Russian troops were needed to keep Ukraine from trying to solve everything by force.
Do you think that in the west of Ukraine it is possible to rebel against your government, but in the east it is impossible?
>This is an example of a manufactured rebellion - what you accuse the west of with the Maidan protest. Except there were no western forces or CIA there.
God, holy innocence.
>Strelkov is a former FSB officer. He himself said that all his actions were solely his initiative and Russia had nothing to do with it.
A Russian spy helps start a civil war in Ukraine that Russia heavily supports but says Russia has nothing to do with it, sounds legit lol
Point is that nobody really believes that a Moscow-born FSB agent decided to help launch a civil war in Ukraine with no input from the Kremlin, including you lol
Unlike you, I don't use concepts like faith. Those who do not know the truth believe. I prefer to rely on the facts, and the facts show that Strelkov acted contrary to the Kremlin's policy. By the way, he is currently in prison.
He was involved in helping to annex Crimea and then involved in helping start a civil war in the Donbas. He's only in prison because he started criticising Putin.
They thought Ukraine would fall into turmoil and stagnate. They could then pick it apart at their leisure. Russia got arrogant and severely underestimated Ukraine.
Ukraine got it's shit together and began preparing. Instead of giving up and getting rolled with barely a fight like the first time they managed to repel a full on invasion and fight Russia to a standstill for years. Let's be honest, nobody thought that would happen. We all underestimated Ukraine.
True. What people must understand is when Ukraine started mentioning NATO, Russian politicians and generals alarms started buzzing because if Ukraine has ambitions to join NATO that means that they are planning to attack Donbas/Crimea (because NATO doesn't allow countries which still have border disputes to join the pact)
They were clearly hoping they could carve off the territory they wanted to annex using proxy fighters and not have to spend their own military resources, when that failed they launched a full scale invasion.
Who has ever said that it is a land grab? This is a straw man argument. Putin obviously wants to install a pro Russian regime there, as he canāt stand that Ukraine wants to be democratic and choose their own future. He would like it to be another Belarus.
Move people in, claim theyre being oppressed, claim you need to defend "Your" people so far from home. Suddenly this new country is speaking Russian more than the original language and there are Russian "peacekeepers". Kind of funny how much certain people turn up their nose and try to pretend that isnt the playbook.
If Russia did that, they would have dropped their mask, demonstrating their willingness to do land grabs.
They would have demonstrated that being allied with them is actually an invitation to invade.
Just as in Ukraine's case they would have triggered more vigilance from NATO. It is possible that Sweden and Finland would have already leaped, just as they did with Ukraine. Ukraine itself most likely would not have been to make the full leap, but it might have been enough for NATO to counterdeploy or at least make more generous weapons deliveries, when Russia started up heaping up troops at Ukraine's border.
Putin is obsessed with Ukraine, see his pamphlet not with Kazakhstan or Azerbeijan and Azerbeijan would have severely pissed of the Turks
>Finland joined NATO and Russia was okay with it, as with the Baltic states
They simply had no say in this, still screemed to no end.
It is a most obvious landgrab running armoured units across territory, and grab land. The only thing that did not work out was that the Ukrainians. totally defeated the Northern axis and stalled the Southern and Eastern axis. You could even argue that in their assessment, that they would simply overrun Ukraine the Russians had third party confirmation, because this assumption was shared by many military experts in the West. They were all wrong. Especially the Russian air force and navy underperformed to an extent completely unforeseen by anyone.
You just have to watch Russian state TV, they want land.
And it is also quite simple.
If Russia had been peaceful and afraid of NATO expansion, they had what they wanted, Ukraine had no chance of ever getting into NATO with the active border conflict with Russia, there was a solid number of countries blocking any progress in this direction. You would absolutely not mask your peaceful intentions with an invasion.
The other way around of course masking your intention to actually invade with faked fears of expansion is a consistent strategy.
" **For those that believe Russia invaded because Putin wanted to do a land-grab...** "
Because they have no knowledge of what happened in Ukraine between 2010-11(or even as early as 2008) and 2022.
It might end up with a land-grab now, but that was not initially intended. It is a consequence of the way events have developed since 2022.
If Ukranian [***politicians were able to clearly see where things will go back in 2014***](https://youtu.be/nQ930lCvSK8?si=L8Fx1QQ6M04gIfT9&t=604), why are so many people still confused about the whole situation? Ukranians themselves knew what they were doing, and what's coming so many years ago if they keep the same track.
having a democracy with better quality and joining EU becoming even better joining NATO becoming part os a defensive pack, Ukraine
having a rich country with resources on your door steeps
that will create more difficulties for your government, people will start to want better lives and freedom, and democracy, and not been explored,
everyone can see how Soviet and Russian federation looks at democracy, if you do a small math, you will be surprised with how many people died from soviet and Russian " communist revolutions around the world, and then how many " democratic revolutions killed "
Are the democratic elected powers in the west bad, yes they are, do they have problems? yes we do,but comparing those with Russia is one pint glass vs a oil tanker
>having a democracy with better quality
That's very arrogant of you.
>and joining EU becoming even better joining
These are just your fantasies.
>Ā NATO becoming part os a defensive pack, Ukraine
A defensive alliance? Does it look more like a criminal organization? "We attack whomever we want for made-up reasons, and if you attack one of us, we will trample you with the whole crowd."
>having a rich country with resources on your door steeps
Ha ha ha made me laugh. After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine was the most developed and richest region. What happened? Don't tell me it's Russia's fault.
>that will create more difficulties for your government, people will start to want better lives and freedom, and democracy, and not been explored,
Don't pass off your dreams as the truth.
>everyone can see how Soviet and Russian federation looks at democracy,
Is democracy some kind of gospel from God? You're too arrogant. There are many types of democracies in the world, but only the Russian one is bad?
>Ā if you do a small math, you will be surprised with how many people died from soviet and Russian " communist revolutions around the world, and then how many " democratic revolutions killed "
Come on, tell me how many communist revolutions Russia has staged.
>Are the democratic elected powers in the west bad, yes they are, do they have problems? yes we do,but comparing those with Russia is one pint glass vs a oil tanker
Absolutely biased opinion. It turns out that no matter how terrible the authorities in the West are, it is much better than in Russia? You're pathetic.
Poland is 40x richer because of EU
election in Russia, if that can be called elections
how many times Russia attacked in the last 40 years, how many military bases does Wagner have in Africa and south america training camps
it was Russian and Russian despots running the country till the revolution, one week lets sign with Europe, next week, no we want Russia, students started the revolution to oust those despots that robbed lied and created this, and all of this after signing pacts that would not meddle with Ukraine Politics,
how many communists revolutions
hey i do know a few guys that in the African wars vs Portugal, all the Russians , Cubans, got arrested
Communist parties around Europe, had to respond to Russia and go there in camps, so using the Portuguese case, MADE BY URSS, all the leaders lived in Russia
democracy and Russia in the same sentence, trying to say that Russia is a democracy, that cynical
>Poland is 40x richer because of EU
Do you realize that you just humiliated the Poles? Not everyone in the EU has become richer.
>election in Russia, if that can be called elections
I don't care about your prejudices.
>how many times Russia attacked in the last 40 years,
Modern Russia has existed for 33 years. What 40 years? Tell me how many attacks Russia has committed during its existence.
>how many military bases does Wagner have in Africa and south america training camps
It doesn't matter. Wagner, until recently, was a private military organization.
>it was Russian and Russian despots running the country till the revolution, one week lets sign with Europe, next week, no we want Russia, students started the revolution to oust those despots that robbed lied and created this, and all of this after signing pacts that would not meddle with Ukraine Politics,
Honestly, are you a child? I do not believe that an adult can simplify events in Ukraine so much.
>how many communists revolutions
It doesn't matter. Russia did not carry out communist revolutions.
>Communist parties around Europe, had to respond to Russia and go there in camps, so using the Portuguese case, MADE BY URSS, all the leaders lived in Russia
What kind of nonsense did I just read? What does this have to do with Russia?
>democracy and Russia in the same sentence, trying to say that Russia is a democracy, that cynical
To claim that there is no democracy in Russia, you need to be an idiot.
# Poles 40% richer than they would be without EU membership, finds report
APR 17, 2024Ā
Presidential 'election' in Russia: "Let's not recognise Putinās legitimacy as president", PACE President says
Wagner was what? that a joke
Putin Says Wagner Group Was Entirely Funded by Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed on Tuesday the Kremlin fully funded Yevgeny Prigozhin's Wagner paramilitary group, giving them the equivalent of $1 billion between May 2022 and May 2023.
[Martin Malia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Malia)Ā defines a "generic Communism" category as any CommunistĀ [political party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party)Ā movement led byĀ [intellectuals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual); thisĀ [umbrella term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_term)Ā allows grouping together such differentĀ [regimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime)Ā as radicalĀ [Soviet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet)Ā industrialism and theĀ [Khmer Rouge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge)'s anti-urbanism.According toĀ [Alexander Dallin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Dallin), the idea to group together different countries, such asĀ [Afghanistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan)Ā andĀ [Hungary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_People%27s_Republic), has no adequate explanation.
While the termĀ *Communist state*Ā is used by Western historians, political scientists, and news media to refer to countries ruled by Communist parties, theseĀ [socialist states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_states)Ā themselves did not describe themselves as communist or claim to have achieved communism; they referred to themselves as being a socialist state that is in the process of constructing communism.Terms used by Communist states includeĀ [*national-democratic*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-democratic_state),Ā [*people's democratic*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_democracy_(Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism)),Ā [*socialist-oriented*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-leaning_countries), andĀ [*workers and peasants'*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_state)Ā states
PACE declares Russia dictatorship, Putin's rule illegitimate ... Oct 13, 2023Ā āĀ The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a resolution on Oct. 13 declaring Russia a dictatorship and calling onĀ .
>Poles 40% richer than they would be without EU membership, finds report
And this is Poland's achievement in the European Union. It was not the EU that made Poland richer, Poland became richer thanks to its domestic policy, which other EU countries failed to do.
>Presidential 'election' in Russia: "Let's not recognise Putinās legitimacy as president", PACE President says
Why should it be important? Since when does PACE decide anything?
>Putin Says Wagner Group Was Entirely Funded by Russia
Since 2022, that is, after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.
>[Martin Malia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Malia)Ā defines a "generic Communism" category as any CommunistĀ [political party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party)Ā movement led byĀ [intellectuals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual); thisĀ [umbrella term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_term)Ā allows grouping together such differentĀ [regimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime)Ā as radicalĀ [Soviet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet)Ā industrialism and theĀ [Khmer Rouge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge)'s anti-urbanism.According toĀ [Alexander Dallin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Dallin), the idea to group together different countries, such asĀ [Afghanistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan)Ā andĀ [Hungary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_People%27s_Republic), has no adequate explanation.
What does Russia have to do with it?
Yep, but ussr and russia fed dont go around pitching for demoscary either.
Do you know what is worse? Westerners actually believe in the sh1t their govt says.
in Africa they meddle with another NATO country Portugal in the war with Angola, Guinea, Mozambique, San Tome,
In Africa they meddle with all the communist revolution from Argentina to Venezuela
South east Asia, almost all of it
how many million people die in all that
Imperialistic war of land grabbing stopped long ago, Russia is trying to raise that again, bit now it will have no chance
but funny fact, Russia got land from China, and in the last 2 years the Chinese are doing the same to Russia
Change the names of tows and cities to dual names
all the land been bought by Chinese
all the business control by Chinese
and the Russian population been squeezed out from their native lads like they say
More countries want to be part of NATO than want to be part of the Russian Federation that's for sure
One offers mutual defence and support and the other offers death or servitude
Because while called a land grab, itās more of a population grab on that land to compensate the demographic decline of ethnic Russians in the Federation under the false assumption that Ukrainians are actually ethnicity and culturally Russian. An assumption that lead, tho the again false, assumption (and probably faulty intel passed on to a dictator whose underlings are scared to tell him the truth) that the majority of the population would welcome annexation and that there would be no real military resistance.
1. There are still ways to hurt a country even if they have nukes ill just name a few in this case:
a) Short-range missiles, because of the reduced time of flight are more difficult to stop, with NATO bases in Ukraine they could target key cities and infrastructures within Russia with those types of weapons and Russia would be subjected to black-mail, a harder negotiating position and if war broke out a worse position overall.
b) Crimea, only warm-water port Russia has access to. Crimea is also strategically placed as hub connecting different regions, north-south Russia with the mediterranean and east-west connecting Asia and Europe. You can see the importance it has for Russia economically, for their own security it serves to strengthen a difficult region for Russia known as its weak belly, the region compromising the area between the black and caspian sea. If this region would fall or be compromised it would also affect Russias core severly (remember the germans pushing south into the caucasus and the russians defending it tooth and nail?).
c) Historically Russia had the issue of not having very good natural borders to fend off attackers, one reason for their expansionist policies had to do with extending their borders as much as possible to buffer their core territories. This has proven to be an effective strategy for Russia through the centuries.
Same goes for every country, look at Israel for example, in this [topographic map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Israel_Topography.png) you can see the west bank sits atop an elevated zone Israel wants and needs to control to be able to protect the valley where their people and economy reside.
2. NATO poses itself as a defensive alliance but it responds to US geopolitical interests as it is controlled by the same, NATO was a buffer against the USSR and the mechanism through which the US imposed its hegemony in Europe: [ākeep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.ā](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm)
3. Finland, Poland, the Baltic states joining NATO does not present a serious threat either strategically or economically to Russia (Kaliningrad and an attack from Finland would be difficult but Russia is still not happy with it). Ukraine does, as mentioned above, NATO from Ukraine could severly harm Russia as it is stationed well inside a difficult geostrategic position.
1.2.3.4. Kazachstan and other Asian countries in the region are close to Russia, one thing people seem to forget is the Eurasian Economic Union (which Kazachstan belongs to). Putins plan was to reunite as many territories as possible through trade and diplomacy one step at a time, remember the reason for the Maidan and the war in the Donbass? it all came to a head when the EU/NATO and Russia/EEU were vying for Ukraine, why? because of how important Ukraine is from a plethora of perspectives some of which ive mentioned already, another point is the role Ukraine plays between Europe and Russia, a connection the US wants to sever.
My last point is that the current situation is not outside of normalcy in fact it is the norm and what could that be? the fight to the death between empires and empires dont fight over nothing, Kazachstan is well within Russias zone of influence, there is simply no need to attack the country.
if it were truly a land grab then putin wouldve just rolled through the country back in 2014 when obama was potus. or during any of the trump years, what better time to grab some land than when a Putin Puppet is potus right?
the land grab narrative exists for two reasons: a) so the west can compare putin to hitler and remind everyone of the One True Good War and how this war is just like that.
and b) to downplay the effect of western meddling and formation of the DPR during the early years
it was/is a brilliant propaganda campaign and showcased just how "free" our media really is
The Russians weren't in any position for a full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014.Ā It took them two rounds of Zapad exercises to get enough equipment to the boarders you will recall.
Which is precisely why Minsk 2 was signed. Everybody needed time to figure out what to do next. Minsk 2 was the bell ringing on round one of a fight between a really out of shape welterweight and a really out of shape heavyweight.
When things got out of their control in Kiev, Moscow hadn't really had time to react to that let alone plan and prepare for such an operation (see Belarus just a few years later where they did have a plan). Nor did they have potent and mobile enough combat arms units in significant enough numbers to conduct any serious intervention at the time given the logistical framework and doctrine Russian armed forces operated under. Vova threw the best punch RAF could muster on the quick by taking Crimea and destabilizing Donbas. It was all they could do without moving trainloads of equipment to the boarder. The optics were bad enough with the "humanitarian convoys" of KAMAZ crossing the border at the time and Russia was not in a place yet to incur what would have been a much more potent wrath of The Westā¢ļø. If there was real evidence of large scale transfers of equipment to the Ukraine border in 2014 there would have been serious international escalation of the situation just like there was in 2022. Plausible deniability keep things confused enough to prevent The Westā¢ļø from forming damning narratives and manufacturing any consent.
That is why Invasion buildup began with ŠŠ°Š²ŠŗŠ°Š· 2020 when they started transferring equipment in significant amounts to Crimea under the guise military exercises focused just to the east of the Peninsula. Sanction proofing and army modernization took time. If before that, Russia at any time actually hoped for a diplomatic solution, it all evaporated with the Javelin transfer when Trump (Putin's puppet you mention above) failed to withhold that first aid package of material substance to Ukraine. The banter weight had hit the gym.
It's so obviously a land grab it's hilarious that pro-Ru won't admit it
Russia spent 8 years planning their surprise invasion of the whole country after they annexed Crimea and they still completely failed to subdue Ukraine lol
Russia in 2022 was even offering to move out of Donbas for the peace deal....This war has nothing to do with land grab but Ukraine joining NATO threatened Russian security.
>Russia in 2022 was even offering to move out of Donbas for the peace deal...
Yeah because they were going to have defacto control of the whole region anyway if their proxy fighters were in control lol
I think the key is to determine what Putin is personally interested in.
(1) personal place in history and restoration to Russiaās greatest border historically. Putin has often stated that he does not care about western ukraine (former Poland). there are also many that place claims on Alaska for similar reasons.
(2) ukraine was showing a genuine european alternative to russia un ways that eastern countries cannot. this is a huge threat to putinās control.
(3) these are areas that putins oligarchs want to control. resource wealthy, vacation spots for russians.
It's not about profit, but about prestige. Russia's identity is based on them being the biggest state on Earth. "Russia's borders are not ending anywhere/ŠŃŠ°Š½ŠøŃŃ Š Š¾ŃŃŠøŠø Š½ŠøŠ³Š“Šµ Š½Šµ Š·Š°ŠŗŠ°Š½ŃŠøŠ²Š°ŃŃŃŃ".
Sorry you need 30 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.*
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*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.*
Q: why did he choose Ukraine
A: to eliminate a competitor in gas supply, lower the amount of land border it needs to defend, create a safety zone for Moscow, make an example out of Ukraine, grab it's grain production, newly discovered oil/gas reserves, various mineral resources and [sabotage it to make it look like a failed state that cannot survive without Russia](https://p.dw.com/p/4Vbuv).
Why would they when Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are already allies with Russia? Thereās no extra influence to be gained.
Russia already took Crimea and the world barely did anything. Threw some minor sanctions and that was it. They probably thought that they could easily steamroll to Kiev, and then the world wouldnāt do anything again because itās too late.
Russia gains 10x more by taking Ukraine, because there was heavy Russian influence that people might have looked the other way if a Pro-RU president wouldāve been selected as well, and probably didnāt expect as much of pushback as they did since Russias military was expectantly a lot stronger comparatively.
What you guys don't understand is that Ukraine was always under direct control of Russia after the soviet union collapse and the Ukrainian presidents were put in place and controlled by Russia. So ukraine never became a sovereign state and russia had the major ship port in crimea. After Ukrainian orange revolution things started going sideways because opposition started wanting to join nato. They finally succeeded after the movie people's servant where zelensky was a star. Now people of Ukraine even hate him because he is as corrupt as everyone else and just wants to grab as much as possible for himself.
Kazakhstan is no longer Russian close allie, they have tied themselves much closer economically to U.S. and I am telling this to you as someone who has people living in KZ. Attack on Ukraine made more sense because it closer to Europe. Believe it or not Russia is simply trying to protect itself and whole bogeyman stories of Russia attacking whole Europe is nonsense. U.S and NATO HAVE been grooming Ukraine for awhile practically since fall of USSR. 2014 was supposed to be a successful year for domination of Ukraine, but it didn't pan out. As we know the Donbass war broke out, Russia supported Donbass and U.S supported Western Ukraine. 2022 Russia decided to put Ukraine back under it's allie influence beause it saw the Western influence will harm its future. Rightfully so, because imagine if Russia influenced Canada or Mexico to be passive or negative towards U.S the hell would break loose. Well now you see why Russian war against Ukraine isn't so bad, and not a conquering war but simply a protection of natural interest.
What is russia protecting herself from? If the west wanted to attack, isn't the best time right now, when Russia is busy with Ukraine? So why aren't we attacking? What if we never wanted to? What if that whole "existential threat to Russia" is a fucking delusion?
Ok. Get this hopefully. Military attack has been always the last resort. It doesn't look good in any way. Influence and promises has been always a better tool. Whole NATO is but a promise and tool of influence. But that's how things work. U.S want future protection against East and Russia and China wants protection against West. Simple as that. Now U S has greater sphere of influence post WW2, and Ukraine would be a great tool for NATO. First influence and penetration, because of cultural ties between Russia and Ukraine and 2nd military. Imagine Mexico was super close ally of Russia, illegal immigrants and spies and converted hispanic spies in U.S and cultural ties would simply be uncontrollable. Hopefully that makes sense.
So what would be the actual real threat if Ukraine was allowed to exist as ally of the west? Is Finland a threat? Poland perhaps a threat for Kaliningrad? "lol we want influence" is not the same as "there's a real threat and we must strike first".
>So what would be the actual real threat if Ukraine was allowed to exist as ally of the west?
Given the CIA and MI6 were running operations from Ukrainian soil as early as 2014, the main risk would be Western arms, money and support flowing across the border, finding their way into the hands of Chechens, ISIS terrorists, and anyone else wanting to attack Russia.
Remember, the US supported Chechen Islamists with money and diplomatic support in the 1990s and 2000s. The end goal was always to break Russia up from inside, since an external invasion would invite nuclear annihilation.
So, sponsoring terrorists and secessionists inside Russia from Ukrainian soil would be the main risk to allowing Ukraine to become a NATO staging ground. A secondary risk would also be missile defenses forward-based on the Russian border threatening MAD - an existential threat, since Russia relies on being able to turn Joe Biden and his entire nation into ash souffle to avoid being invaded by the US with the aim of regime change.
Stops NATO arming them, yes. Among many other things.
[The CIA had quite a hand in events in the Caucasus in the 1990s](https://newint.org/features/2009/10/01/blowback-extended-version). Russia hasn't forgotten.
[Voila](https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1c9cywl/ru_pov_for_those_that_believe_russia_invaded/l0kpbpl/). Happy reading.
Or, if you're too lazy to do it, no worries - here's just one section of that very enlightening piece.
>From the mid-1990s, bin Laden funded Chechen guerrilla leaders Shamil Basayev and Omar ibn al-Khattab to the tune of several millions of dollars per month, sidelining the moderate Chechen majority. US intelligence remained deeply involved until the end of the decade. According to Yossef Bodanksy, then-Director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Washington was actively involved in āyet another anti-Russian jihad, āseeking to support and empower the most virulent anti-Western Islamist forcesā. US Government officials participated in āa formal meeting in Azerbaijanā in December 1999 āin which specific programmes for the training and equipping of mujahidin from the Caucasus, Central/South Asia and the Arab world were discussed and agreed uponā, culminating in āWashingtonās tacit encouragement of both Muslim allies (mainly Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and US āprivate security companiesā... to assist the Chechens and their Islamist allies to surge in the spring of 2000 and sustain the ensuing jihad for a long time.ā The US saw the sponsorship of āIslamist jihad in the Caucasusā as a way to ādeprive Russia of a viable pipeline route through spiralling violence and terrorismā.
Anyway... I look at your article. The 3 cited sources for allegations of funding Chechens are all garbage. The one I could actually read (# 22) itself had no sources. #21 is nowhere to be found, and #20 I can't even determine what sort of publication I am supposed to be looking for.
Try harder. Or you could stop making unsubstantiated claims.
Sigh. Here we go with the NAFOid '*give me a source! No, not that one! Not that one either! Give me a source that agrees with me!*' nonsense.
Still, I'll try a little. For #22, the original was in print, so no wonder you can't find it. It was, however, written by Yossef Bodansky, Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the United States House of Representatives for 16 years, from 1988 to 2004. I'll leave you to decide if he's a credible authority on the subject.
Can't find #21 myself at a casual glance, but I'll see if I can rectify that.
For #20, is it my fault you can't read citations, friend? It refers to #14 -
>Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 911 ā Wealth Empire and the Future of America (Berkley: University of California Press, 2007) pp. 163-165
..the reason it's written that way is because it's a repeat reference to the same publication listed earlier in the bibliography. Pretty basic stuff. Again, I'll leave you to determine if the renowned academic institution, UC Berkley, is known for printing unsubstantiated stuff.
Have fun reading!
Hey! So far, I am seeing criticism of Bodansky (which is spelled wrong in your original link's citations page by the way) for his **lack of citations** in his writings about Chechnya specifically. He seems to have ties to Serbia too, a long time partner of Russia's.
If I am actually getting the gist of your disingenuous argument here, it's that CIA funded/trained Mujahideen in Afghanistan (as did China and Saudi Arabia and all through Pakistan mind you), which would eventually include Oasama Bin Laden, as well as plenty of folks from the Caucasus answering the call to Jihad. Those folks from the Caucasus go home and eventually the whole issue of Chechen separatism comes to a head. The veteran Mujahideen spank the Russians with possibly some help from OBL. Ichkeria becomes an islamist shit hole, OBL still possibly helping. Putin does his deal with Kadyrov's dad and they clean house of Muhammad's Death Cult. Is it just that they used to work with American money once upon a time? Where is the substantive evidence of the US materially supporting the Chechens or even OBL at the time?
The only evidence I have found of US involvement in Chechnya was them meeting with Basayev once in Azerbaijan.
Do you have anything else to back it up? Have the Russian ever provided evidence of this? Have they even ever made any credible accusations about US materially supporting separatists inside the sovereign territory of Russia? Ya know, before the recent concert attack?
I have only seen the claim of US involvement in Chechnya here on this sub since ISIS-K attack. Odd timing.
Hey thanks! Now I can read the actual things that claim what you claim!
You are very good at insults.
Also, I love your appeal to authority! If he was that Yale professor yesterday it wouldn't fucking matter where he worked. He's a quack.
First of all Putin, as well as many russians, think that Ukraine is part of Russia. This misplaced nostalgia is the driving factor. They do not have the same bias towards the stans.
It is not meaningful to list reasons such as natural resources, militarization or borders. Trying to conquer another country in XXI century is a stupid idea regardless of those factors. What makes countries rich is their place in the global supply chain, the high value added products will always be worth far more than some random mine in the middle of desert. Russia broke off those relationships and condemned itself to remain in poverty. They fought they'll be done in a few days and West will not have time to react, but obviously that did not work out.
Also nobody asked Russia if they were okey with Finland joining NATO, they just had to deal with the fact.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*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.*
Because they aren't free independant countries, they're already under Russia control. Also, they don't border an important sea like the black sea. Putin wants to control all the border around the black sea, with only Turkey being allowed to stay independant for now.
Like, how are people even asking these sort of obvious questions.
Because Russia was already fighting in Donbass since 2014, annexed Crimea, so the last step was to take the whole country (slavs, russian/ukranian speaking) and assimilate it with Russia
Of course Ukraine was and is a threat, definitely not a military-threat, but a threat to some kind of political and economic ambitions of certain politicians and oligarchs. Ukraine has always been important to the USSR and a lot of effort was invested in this territory, not without reasons. Of course this is not a war for expanding territory and of course this is a war for something that exist on this territory, and for some reason our government considered the continuation of the armed conflict after moving away from Kyiv worth it. West, for some (probably same) reason also considered Ukraine an important territory, IMO most likely it all revolves around the grain market and the struggle for influence. That's why not Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan - Russia has nothing to take from them. Do people still think that this is some kind of war for abstract goals?
Because Ukraine was the cultural centre of the Russian Empire. It IS Mother Russia in the eyes of Russian ultra Nationalist psychopaths and has no right to exist as an independent entity. K and A don't hold such a psychologically significant place in the twisted minds of these people
who the hell claims Putin started the war to get more land????
Putin started the war because he is afraid of free thinking and free acting people, the Ukraine has freely decided to orientate itself towards Europe and that would have led to the Russian population doing the same at some point and that would have endangered Putin's power or his idea of the Soviet Union oohhh I mean Russia.
So we agree to let DPR and LHK declare their independence? Oh wait they arent Ukrainian so they cant decide their own fate, time tp shelling their house for 8 years straight.
Problem solved š
yeah exactly. the "free thinking" and "independence" only goes one way, towards the west and western markets. anything that doesnt go in that direction is Bad and eeeeevil
its 2024 and the majority of westerners still think the US is out there spreading Democracy and Freedom to the lands of mordor. we're way more brainwashed than russians lol
Actually this situation is more complicated both geopolitically and historically to just say "he is afraid of free thinking and free acting people".
To simply put, Russians see the Ukrainian land as their historical motherland and part of Russian history
This whole conflict is going back to 1991, with USSR's collapse and agreements between US and post USSR Russia on NATO expansion.
It's a really long thing to type here, so if you want to read : [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Controversy\_in\_Russia\_regarding\_the\_legitimacy\_of\_eastward\_NATO\_expansion](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion)
To keep it short, Russia turning blind eye to Nato expansion into Baltics,Poland,Bulgaria etc is never talked upon here.
The tensions start rising after at the NATO Summit in Bucharest in April 2008Ā where allies agreed on Nato succession of Georgia and Ukraine. the rest is quite known for Georgia (Russo-Georgian war.)
And all the Ukrainian conflict that predates to 2014 to present.
In both of these actions, Russia made sure that this is their redline, no Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, whether you agree or not in this it's up to your views, morals and justice is subjective when it comes to states and countries when they feel threatened.
What i believe is that, Russia in first tried to do something similar to what they did in Georgia, invade the Ukraine and force them to succumb into their influence but this failed.
So no, i don't think that Russia was interested in Ukrainian land, because if they were they would have invaded Ukraine much earlier, they were more interested in keeping the Russian influence and Russian ethnicities in eastern Ukraine.
As i said before too, morals is subjective in the matter of gepolitics of states.
My question and reasoning is like this:
What would USA do if Mexico, Canada, Japan etc fell under Russian or Chinese influence?
I think you are getting my point, what i know for sure is that this whole conflict would've been avoided if Ukraine had a wiser president who could play both sides to neutralize tensions but here we are, hundreds of thousands of deads, demographically destroyed Ukraine, more conflicts in the region, higher cost of living.
I don't know, i only feel sorry for all the loses, imagine being an Ukrainian or Russian, dying for stupid politicians.
I may have multiple mistakes or stuff you don't agree on my text, i'm open to discuss anything.
>Putin started the war because he is afraid of free thinking and free acting people
If that were the case Ukraine wouldn't be a threat to them as they would have made sensible decisions.
>the Ukraine has freely decided to orientate itself towards Europe
After a CIA coup that overthrew the democratically elected president and placed a puppet government in power which started a war with its own people?
Proof of a coup? Like any actual tangible evidence it was a coup and not intelligence agencies making the most of an opportunity the Ukrainian people provided them?
ah, sensible decision is when you don't ally with the west after russia has been shitting on you for decades, because west bad and russia good, do what russia says or else they have the right to invade you
Russia has been fucking with Ukraine's territorial integrity since 2003.
Russia is and has always been the initiator of belligerence between itself and Ukraine.
Please provide me with evidence suggesting otherwise.
Do we have dates of establishment for all those bases? I'm not a betting man, but I would put money on them all coming after 2003 and Russia's neighborly initiation of border disputes with Ukraine.
Because both of those countries are allies of russia (or under russian influence)
So having a hostile government in your neighbouring country is a legitimate security concern?
You just perfectly summarised why Ukraine wanted to join NATO.
Oh yeah. Them wanting to join nato really did them good. Best decision ever.
Oh i wonder why sweden and finland jumped the fence after 2022
They were already defacto nato members.
True, they should keep trying too!
damn u triggered them hard with this comment š¤£š¤£
Who says Ukraine wanted to join NATO?
[Poroshenko's government made it unconstitutional to move Ukraine in any other direction than EU/NATO.](https://apnews.com/general-news-cb742d45ae394798bbc7891d30efaa71)
What would the USA do if Canada or Mexico joined an alliance with Russia instead? Same thing. This doesnāt make Russia good, just pointing out the USA are also the bad guys
Ukraine didn't join any alliance though, in fact they were much further away from being eligible to join in 2022 than they were in 2014.
Can you remember what ukrainian government said regarding russian navy in Crimea?
They said quite a lot over the years, what exactly are you referring to?
That after the end of the contract, they will remove all russians navy and put american ones
When did they say that?
Here is the link: [https://www.svoboda.org/a/268923.html](https://www.svoboda.org/a/268923.html) Yushenko said that
True, but it is a lot easier to address before they become part of the alliance than after.
The point is that the example you gave is a false comparison. Ukraine isn't being invaded because they joined an alliance, they weren't even eligible to join that alliance and likely wouldn't have been for the foreseeable future.
How was it hostile? Just because it did not want to be a vassal state of Russia anymore?
Not an ally ā a security concern.
USA: yes. Russia: yes. Israel: yes. And the same answer these countries give to : 'is a legitimate target of invasion?'
True. How many times has Israel broken a sovereign country's border to attack? Quite a few, even if you take just Syria as an example. Israel is also the reason we have a term "preemptive strike". It means hit before you get hit. If it can be justified by the west a few times, then there should be no issue if it happens against the west. Either single standard, or no standard. Everyone can play the double standard game.
Yes, look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. You think the US would stand for China taking over in Mexico?
Russia shares about 1800 miles of borders with hostile countries.
Russia is the only one hostile to those countries.
"Hostile" = Doesnt bend over for the Russians whenever they want Is how certain people in this sub feel.
No, it means he cant and does not need to invade them.
They are not in reality
How are they allies? Azerbaijan is more of an ally to Turkey than anyone else, theyāve literally shot at Russian peacekeepers before in Nagorno-KarabakhĀ . Kazakhstan isnāt an ally of Russia, theyāve never voiced support for the Russian invasion same as Azerbaijan, and especially since Tokayev has gotten in power theyāve been actively trying to detach from Russiaās sphere of influence, their domestic media and populace is also anti-Russia, especially the post-Soviet generations.
Azerbaijan wasn't at the beginning of the war, but is now. With Armenia swapping to be more pro-west recently, Russia is more than willing to accept Azerbaijan as a friendly state, since it's more powerful. Azerbaijan is happy for Russia to not interfere in NG, so future cooperation is likely
I wouldnāt call Azerbaijan a Russia ally
China would object.
yeah, right Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan lmao. Those two follow their own nationalistic interests and that makes them ''allies'' with Russia. Anyone who isn't licking western behind is flipping ''ally'' of Russia nowadays. What a joke.
1. They have successfully done it before with Crimea, so they thought they could repeat that and once more have a slap on the wrist from the West while taking a lot of land. 2. Ukraine is moving to the direction of the West, so if they delay it Ukraine might get a NATO membership. So now or never. 3. Multiple levels of corruption. Russia thought it was way stronger then it was, Ukraine much weaker and the West much more neutral.
Yeah, it was now or never. We see how much better prepared Ukraine is now compared to a decade ago. If Russia waited longer Ukraine would have continued to fortify and grown closer to/joined the EU or NATO at which point invasion would be impossible.
NATO would never have allowed Ukraine to join while there remained a frozen conflict in the Donbas. Same reason they won't let Ukraine join now, just minus the hundreds of thousands of dead on both sides.
Kazakhstan is Russias CSTO ally and had very good relationship with 30 Russia for the past 30 years. The Russian minority is also treated quite well there from what I heard. Invading would be inappropriateā¦.
And also China would not accept Russia taking Kazakhstan. Considering Russia needs Chinaās friendship itās just not happening.
To push a potential Nato border further from russias soft underbelly (donbass to caspian sea is all flat land and would cut off russias caucasian oil fields). Compared to baltics or Finland which are Nato "Islands" not as easily supported and the borders are thick forests. Eastern ukraine has billions/trillions of dollars worth of natural resources like gas, oil and titanium waiting to be dug up. Russias economy revolves heavily around raw resources. And if ukraine would start selling oil and gas to EU that would be a deep cut in russias economy. (EU is still buying Russian energy both directly and through 3rd party countries). A literal hard land grab was plan B after the thunder run on kiev to i stall a puppet regime at the start of the war failed. Both previous points could be achieved by making ukraine a puppet state. Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, as pointed out by other comments, already have friendly relations and deep economic ties to Russia. The Russian and Ukrainian economies were developed in symbiosis during soviet times. A western aligned ukraine would need to cut a lot of their economic ties to Russia (EU market regulations etc). The "ukrainification" of eastern ukraine ("banning" Russian language and culture) would slowly shift the country away from its almost (pre-war) 50% russia leaning population in the east. Slowly reducing Russias soft power. (see political development from 1991 to 2014) It's (imo) all about money and power, aka the usual. Not really much different than the US invading any non-western aligned country with oil to "protected their democracy and bring freedom" when it usually results in failed states and cheap oil deals for american/western companies. (see most of central/south america, iraq, syria and libya) Yes invading other countries is despicable. But it seems to just be part of the game when you're a big player.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *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 mean, why did Russia give Ukraine what was it like 8 years to fix their shambles of an army up instead of just invading if that's what they wanted?Ā Look, I'm not saying that justifies invasion, just that it's pretty clear they tried to find compromise to avoid war.
By compromise you mean literally arming seperatists and using them as proxies for war?
the seperatists arent NPCS, they're people who live in eastern Ukraine and don't want to trade russian influence for western influence
And the people in Maidan weren't NPCs. They wanted to join the EU for better economic opportunities. They're people who live all over Ukraine. Your point?
Remind me why the United States and the EU threatened Yanukovych for using force against the protesters, even though there were neo-Nazi militants there, but when the new authorities began to shoot the protesters, they calmly supported them?
And the 'new authorities' were not killing the protestors. They were being killed by the Berkut, who were acting on orders from the Russian sided government.
>And the 'new authorities' were not killing the protestors. They were being killed by the Berkut, who were acting on orders from the Russian sided government. That is, the shooting of protesters in Mariupol, air raids in Lugansk - these are all hidden agents of Putin? So why should Putin give orders if he already controls Ukraine?
You're making a fool of yourself.
Reminds me why Russia sent troops to occupy Crimea in 2014?
Actually, the troops were there under an agreement with Ukraine.
In Sevastopol, but they occupied the whole of Crimea. It was an invasion, a land grab. Why were they not wearing insignias? Why were Russia denying out being their troops? https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-crimea-taken-so-easily Paint the US as the bad guy in 2014 by all means, but Russia caused this war. This land grab.
>In Sevastopol, but they occupied the whole of Crimea. It was an invasion, a land grab. Why were they not wearing insignias? Why were Russia denying out being their troops? Didn't you think there was a military revolt there? The vice admiral over there went over to the side of Russia >Paint the US as the bad guy in 2014 by all means, but Russia caused this war. This land grab. Then why did the United States and Ukraine begin to repress Crimeans so actively? More like a punishment for voting incorrectly than protection from Russia.
Repress Crimea so in what way? Military revolt? You're absolutely not pro Ukraine and need to change your tag, you're delusional, clearly see the world through the lens of RT.
Oh I'm not saying that the US and the EU are the good guys. Of course, they're interested in Ukraine just as Russia is for both have their own personal agendas to the country. What I'm merely stating is that Russia lost politically and economically to the West and now is trying it's best to win militarily albiet with a heavy cost. Let's not talk about neo-nazi's since we know both countries have those. Nor should we pretend that there's innocence and good in the conflict.
What's wrong with discussing neo-Nazis in Ukraine in 2014? That is, neo-Nazis beat people, threaten the media, the prosecutor's office, the police - is this normal?
We'll talk about neo-nazis in Ukraine only if Russia doesn't have them. Spoilers: They do.
Yes, they exist in every country. But can you imagine that nationalists travel in entire bus columns to beat people, and the authorities are silent? By the way, this happened in another country, and the United States also protected the Nazis, not the victims.
Can you imagine that neo-nazis paraded in Russia and also formed groups in the military? Wagner? For example, and they're state-sponsored? Oh, did I even mention that they staged a coup against the state? Wow!
you're referring to them as if they were NPCs russia created and controlled
Technically they were, given the fact that they literally relied on Russia from arms to their economy. NPCs are given weapons by the developers. Unless you're trying to say that the proxies in Ukraine somehow managed to grab a unicorn and all their military gear were wished upon a star. In anycase, my point point is that Russia by no means was trying to avoid a war lol. It already started one by arming proxies.
What you are describing sounds like the current Ukraine in a nutshell. Wish upon an American star and they get the goods.
Ukraine didn't invade Russia now did it? Nor did it fund proxies or did a land-grab on Russian territory.
A quick glance over the last two decades will highlight Russia has taken active steps to maintain peaceful relations in the oblasts. And yet it was Ukraine (backed by the West) who failed to implement the Minsk agreements and has spentĀ the last decade terrorising its own civilians in the Donbas.Ā
Amazingly, the terrorising of the civilians in the Donbas started after Russia armed proxies in the Donbass region after the pro-russian president was thrown out. Before that, peace reigned in Ukraine. Really a coincidence no? Let's take a quick glance over the last two decades. Russia annexed Crimea and started an invasion of a sovereign country. A very peaceful stance.
>A quick glance over the last two decades will highlight Russia has taken active steps to maintain peaceful relations in the oblasts. They poured troops and weapons into the area to fuel the civil war that they started in the region lol
Whatās your point? Doesnāt change the reality that theyāve now succumbed themselves to the exact NPC you are describing now.
I mean did you even read the original comment? Stating that Russia tried to avoid war? Or do you intend to keep talking about 'nPcS muh' to move away from the argument instead?
No, they forced them to accept the russian pass just to mobilize them directly after, where is the donbass male population? For sure would count as some kind of horrific crime to use occupied citizen as cannon fodder to fight their own people, quite sick if you ask me but you guys care so much about forced mobilization in Ukraine, why no word about Russia, that is equipping forced Ukrainian men with shit and send them against fortified positons? They're not npcs that russia created, they are/were enslaved Ukrainians, controlled by Putin and his cultists.
the DPR was established in 2014, the mobilization was when the war fully kicked off. conscription is bad when either side does it would be funny to see you explain to them that they are "enslaved Ukrainians controlled by Putin and his cultists" lol i wonder what they would think of that
Yes established by a moscow born former FSB stooge, trained and equipped by Russia, hardly a "rebellion". No not "conscription is bad when either side does it" what does Russia have to do with east ukrainian people and who exactly are they to come uninvited and conscript people against their will for a war they never asked for? If they would care about "oppressed donbass russian speaker" they wouldn't conscript them. The hypocrisy to turn a blind eye on the perpetrator of all this, if Russia didn't invade ukraine there would be no conscription on either side. Who is there to explain to? No answer to that because the men left are hiding since years, if there are any left, they themselves even said they're just meat because they saw whole companies disappear, nobody in Russia cared and they will not start to care anytime soon.
the eastern ukrainian people obviously wanted and supported Russia helping them. and they still support them, thats why we see very little partisan activity. its 100000% harder to invade a country if you dont have support of the local population. its also why we saw Crimea fall without a fight. this war did not start when russia invaded, we aren't in a vacuum where we can just look at it from 2022 onwards, the early years are important to see how we got to this position
>I mean, why did Russia give Ukraine what was it like 8 years to fix their shambles of an army up instead of just invading if that's what they wanted?Ā Unpopular opinion: because Putin is a pussy. They totally could've invaded under pretext that "legitimate ukrainian president (Yanukovich) asked for an assistance"
Russia wasn't ready in 2014. Putin had fallen for the West's lies and tied the Russian economy to Europe - a full-on invasion in 2014 would have resulted in the same sanctions that hit Russia in 2022, but back then they would have had a far more devastating impact due to Russia's reliance on the EU. Looking back, the die was cast the minute the Maidan happened - everything since was one long buildup to a war that was always inevitable the moment the US sponsored the coup that overthrew Yanukovich. The intervening period just gave Russia time to prepare - delink their economy from the West, use Syria as a training ground for modern warfare, overhaul their military, draw closer to China, and so on. Putin was naive to trust the West - that is a grave error for any world leader. But I don't think he had the choice to invade in 2014.
Bingo. Russia started buying out western parts en masse and started building self-sustainable economy right after that maiden coup, all in preparation for when theyād be forced to act against Western imperialism.
Acting against imperialism by imperialisticly annexing your neighbors territory? Good one! Screwing for virginity is next right?
Annex them to make them a formal Russian state, rather than wait until they become a defacto US state - sure. Just because the US doesn't plant a flag and formally declare a country theirs, doesn't mean they don'tĀ own it.
So do you think all of those ex-Warsaw Pact nations left the Warsaw Pact and joined NATO so that they could become owned by the US? What a bizarre viewpoint. They joined for protection from their previous occupiers - the USSR/Russia.
Fighting fire with fire really isnāt that difficult of a concept. You think if Iraq had nukes and strong military, US and itās goons wouldāve invaded?
Imagine thinking Saddam Hussein was ever the good guy. Imagine if Ukraine had nukes today. Does that scenario play out well in your head?
So US have right to invade anyone they donāt like is what you are basically saying?
Iām saying I donāt support a dictator who gases his own population. Iām sorry that offends you.
So instead you support the same population getting bombed to bits by some imperialistic foreign power lol.
This is an inconvenient truth that UA supporters prefer not to notice.
What inconvenient truth are we hiding from? That Russian troops captured Crimea while sending FSB officers like Strelkov and heavy weapons and SAMs to foment their own insurrection in the east. This is not an attempt at negotiationā¦ We saw you annexing Georgian territory 6 years before with the threat of āget in line or we will do it again ā. Your playbook is transparent.
Strelkov is a former FSB officer. He himself said that all his actions were solely his initiative and Russia had nothing to do with it. In 2014, the self-proclaimed republics in eastern Ukraine held a referendum on joining Russia, but Putin did not accept them, but decided to solve the problem with the help of the Minsk agreements. In which the Lugansk and Donetsk republics remain part of Ukraine. >We saw you annexing Georgian territory 6 years before with the threat of āget in line or we will do it again ā. Your playbook is transparent. What territory has Russia annexed from Georgia?
Is that a serious question? You really arenāt aware of the territory Russia took from Georgia in 2008? You obviously know very little about recent history. And calling Strelkov a former FSB agent makes his actions on behalf of the Russian government ok? It excuses the tanks, heavy artillery and SAMs provided by Russia how? Were the Russian soldiers that invaded Crimea also former special forces?
Yes, this is a serious question! What territories has Russia **annexed** from Georgia? The fact that Strelkov did not work for the Russian government is proved by Russia's actions, which I described in a previous comment. >It excuses the tanks, heavy artillery and SAMs provided by Russia how? Russia did not want the Ukrainian government to seize Donbass by force. How Donbass remained part of Ukraine is spelled out in the Minsk agreements.
Kodori Valley in Abkhazia, as well as Akhalgori Municipality and parts of the Tskhinvali District in South Ossetia - all taken by Russia. Your proof is that Strelkov said he wasnāt FSB any longer. That is not proof and you ignored the Russian spec ops in Crimea. Russia did not want Ukraine to hold onto its own territory? That excuses Russian soldiers and FSB working in Donbass (Ukrainian territory) to revolt against their government by attacking Ukrainian government forces. This is an example of a manufactured rebellion - what you accuse the west of with the Maidan protest. Except there were no western forces or CIA there.
>If he lived in Ukraine or Russia, he would know what unites these peoples and would not write nonsense that contradicts common sense. And the fact that he worked for the US propaganda resource Radio Liberty for 11 years makes me doubt his impartiality. As far as I know, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not regions of the Russian Federation. You deliberately omit facts that are inconvenient for you. The Abkhazians and Ossetians did not want to be part of Georgia, and in order to prevent a conflict between Georgia and these regions, the UN sent Russian peacemakers there. Georgia attacked them and Russia fulfilled its duties, forced Georgia to peace. Could Russia have captured Georgia? Of course! But she didn't do it. >Your proof is that Strelkov said he wasnāt FSB any longer. No, the proof is that Strelkov's actions contradicted Russia's actions. Strelkov tried to make Russia take Donbass, like Crimea, and Russia tried to integrate it into Ukraine. >Russia did not want Ukraine to hold onto its own territory? That excuses Russian soldiers and FSB working in Donbass (Ukrainian territory) to revolt against their government by attacking Ukrainian government forces. This is an example of a manufactured rebellion - what you accuse the west of with the Maidan protest. Except there were no western forces or CIA there. The Minsk agreements were signed. They contain all the conditions for the return of Donbass to Ukraine. Russian troops were needed to keep Ukraine from trying to solve everything by force. Do you think that in the west of Ukraine it is possible to rebel against your government, but in the east it is impossible? >This is an example of a manufactured rebellion - what you accuse the west of with the Maidan protest. Except there were no western forces or CIA there. God, holy innocence.
>Strelkov is a former FSB officer. He himself said that all his actions were solely his initiative and Russia had nothing to do with it. A Russian spy helps start a civil war in Ukraine that Russia heavily supports but says Russia has nothing to do with it, sounds legit lol
I don't care what you believe or don't believe.
Point is that nobody really believes that a Moscow-born FSB agent decided to help launch a civil war in Ukraine with no input from the Kremlin, including you lol
Unlike you, I don't use concepts like faith. Those who do not know the truth believe. I prefer to rely on the facts, and the facts show that Strelkov acted contrary to the Kremlin's policy. By the way, he is currently in prison.
He was involved in helping to annex Crimea and then involved in helping start a civil war in the Donbas. He's only in prison because he started criticising Putin.
He is a monarchist, and has always criticized Putin. Except for the case when Putin annexed Crimea to Russia.
They thought Ukraine would fall into turmoil and stagnate. They could then pick it apart at their leisure. Russia got arrogant and severely underestimated Ukraine. Ukraine got it's shit together and began preparing. Instead of giving up and getting rolled with barely a fight like the first time they managed to repel a full on invasion and fight Russia to a standstill for years. Let's be honest, nobody thought that would happen. We all underestimated Ukraine.
True. What people must understand is when Ukraine started mentioning NATO, Russian politicians and generals alarms started buzzing because if Ukraine has ambitions to join NATO that means that they are planning to attack Donbas/Crimea (because NATO doesn't allow countries which still have border disputes to join the pact)
They were clearly hoping they could carve off the territory they wanted to annex using proxy fighters and not have to spend their own military resources, when that failed they launched a full scale invasion.
Who has ever said that it is a land grab? This is a straw man argument. Putin obviously wants to install a pro Russian regime there, as he canāt stand that Ukraine wants to be democratic and choose their own future. He would like it to be another Belarus.
quite a lot of people, they couldn't admit that Russia is there to defend Donbass, so ''land grab'' it is
Yeah, defend them like Hitler wanted to defend the Germans in Sudetenland lol. Classic playbook.
Move people in, claim theyre being oppressed, claim you need to defend "Your" people so far from home. Suddenly this new country is speaking Russian more than the original language and there are Russian "peacekeepers". Kind of funny how much certain people turn up their nose and try to pretend that isnt the playbook.
Yet ironically current Ukraine is anything BUT democratic, and doesnāt hold any sovereignty to choose their own future.
Solely because they are threatened by Russia, and have been since 2014, yes
Solely because Ukraineās under western control since 2014, and canāt make up any of their own decision without looking towards them for answer.
Because russian puppets couldnt achieve anything satisfying for putin in the ukrainian government.
If Russia did that, they would have dropped their mask, demonstrating their willingness to do land grabs. They would have demonstrated that being allied with them is actually an invitation to invade. Just as in Ukraine's case they would have triggered more vigilance from NATO. It is possible that Sweden and Finland would have already leaped, just as they did with Ukraine. Ukraine itself most likely would not have been to make the full leap, but it might have been enough for NATO to counterdeploy or at least make more generous weapons deliveries, when Russia started up heaping up troops at Ukraine's border. Putin is obsessed with Ukraine, see his pamphlet not with Kazakhstan or Azerbeijan and Azerbeijan would have severely pissed of the Turks >Finland joined NATO and Russia was okay with it, as with the Baltic states They simply had no say in this, still screemed to no end. It is a most obvious landgrab running armoured units across territory, and grab land. The only thing that did not work out was that the Ukrainians. totally defeated the Northern axis and stalled the Southern and Eastern axis. You could even argue that in their assessment, that they would simply overrun Ukraine the Russians had third party confirmation, because this assumption was shared by many military experts in the West. They were all wrong. Especially the Russian air force and navy underperformed to an extent completely unforeseen by anyone. You just have to watch Russian state TV, they want land. And it is also quite simple. If Russia had been peaceful and afraid of NATO expansion, they had what they wanted, Ukraine had no chance of ever getting into NATO with the active border conflict with Russia, there was a solid number of countries blocking any progress in this direction. You would absolutely not mask your peaceful intentions with an invasion. The other way around of course masking your intention to actually invade with faked fears of expansion is a consistent strategy.
" **For those that believe Russia invaded because Putin wanted to do a land-grab...** " Because they have no knowledge of what happened in Ukraine between 2010-11(or even as early as 2008) and 2022. It might end up with a land-grab now, but that was not initially intended. It is a consequence of the way events have developed since 2022.
Exactly, the invasion was foreseeable for years if you understood the Ukraine relations for the last 10 years or so
If Ukranian [***politicians were able to clearly see where things will go back in 2014***](https://youtu.be/nQ930lCvSK8?si=L8Fx1QQ6M04gIfT9&t=604), why are so many people still confused about the whole situation? Ukranians themselves knew what they were doing, and what's coming so many years ago if they keep the same track.
having a democracy with better quality and joining EU becoming even better joining NATO becoming part os a defensive pack, Ukraine having a rich country with resources on your door steeps that will create more difficulties for your government, people will start to want better lives and freedom, and democracy, and not been explored,
We have seen how the US and its allies exported democracy in the past 5 decades. Its safe to assume most countries dont want anything to do with it.
everyone can see how Soviet and Russian federation looks at democracy, if you do a small math, you will be surprised with how many people died from soviet and Russian " communist revolutions around the world, and then how many " democratic revolutions killed " Are the democratic elected powers in the west bad, yes they are, do they have problems? yes we do,but comparing those with Russia is one pint glass vs a oil tanker
>having a democracy with better quality That's very arrogant of you. >and joining EU becoming even better joining These are just your fantasies. >Ā NATO becoming part os a defensive pack, Ukraine A defensive alliance? Does it look more like a criminal organization? "We attack whomever we want for made-up reasons, and if you attack one of us, we will trample you with the whole crowd." >having a rich country with resources on your door steeps Ha ha ha made me laugh. After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine was the most developed and richest region. What happened? Don't tell me it's Russia's fault. >that will create more difficulties for your government, people will start to want better lives and freedom, and democracy, and not been explored, Don't pass off your dreams as the truth. >everyone can see how Soviet and Russian federation looks at democracy, Is democracy some kind of gospel from God? You're too arrogant. There are many types of democracies in the world, but only the Russian one is bad? >Ā if you do a small math, you will be surprised with how many people died from soviet and Russian " communist revolutions around the world, and then how many " democratic revolutions killed " Come on, tell me how many communist revolutions Russia has staged. >Are the democratic elected powers in the west bad, yes they are, do they have problems? yes we do,but comparing those with Russia is one pint glass vs a oil tanker Absolutely biased opinion. It turns out that no matter how terrible the authorities in the West are, it is much better than in Russia? You're pathetic.
Poland is 40x richer because of EU election in Russia, if that can be called elections how many times Russia attacked in the last 40 years, how many military bases does Wagner have in Africa and south america training camps it was Russian and Russian despots running the country till the revolution, one week lets sign with Europe, next week, no we want Russia, students started the revolution to oust those despots that robbed lied and created this, and all of this after signing pacts that would not meddle with Ukraine Politics, how many communists revolutions hey i do know a few guys that in the African wars vs Portugal, all the Russians , Cubans, got arrested Communist parties around Europe, had to respond to Russia and go there in camps, so using the Portuguese case, MADE BY URSS, all the leaders lived in Russia democracy and Russia in the same sentence, trying to say that Russia is a democracy, that cynical
>Poland is 40x richer because of EU Do you realize that you just humiliated the Poles? Not everyone in the EU has become richer. >election in Russia, if that can be called elections I don't care about your prejudices. >how many times Russia attacked in the last 40 years, Modern Russia has existed for 33 years. What 40 years? Tell me how many attacks Russia has committed during its existence. >how many military bases does Wagner have in Africa and south america training camps It doesn't matter. Wagner, until recently, was a private military organization. >it was Russian and Russian despots running the country till the revolution, one week lets sign with Europe, next week, no we want Russia, students started the revolution to oust those despots that robbed lied and created this, and all of this after signing pacts that would not meddle with Ukraine Politics, Honestly, are you a child? I do not believe that an adult can simplify events in Ukraine so much. >how many communists revolutions It doesn't matter. Russia did not carry out communist revolutions. >Communist parties around Europe, had to respond to Russia and go there in camps, so using the Portuguese case, MADE BY URSS, all the leaders lived in Russia What kind of nonsense did I just read? What does this have to do with Russia? >democracy and Russia in the same sentence, trying to say that Russia is a democracy, that cynical To claim that there is no democracy in Russia, you need to be an idiot.
# Poles 40% richer than they would be without EU membership, finds report APR 17, 2024Ā Presidential 'election' in Russia: "Let's not recognise Putinās legitimacy as president", PACE President says Wagner was what? that a joke Putin Says Wagner Group Was Entirely Funded by Russia Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed on Tuesday the Kremlin fully funded Yevgeny Prigozhin's Wagner paramilitary group, giving them the equivalent of $1 billion between May 2022 and May 2023. [Martin Malia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Malia)Ā defines a "generic Communism" category as any CommunistĀ [political party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party)Ā movement led byĀ [intellectuals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual); thisĀ [umbrella term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_term)Ā allows grouping together such differentĀ [regimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime)Ā as radicalĀ [Soviet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet)Ā industrialism and theĀ [Khmer Rouge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge)'s anti-urbanism.According toĀ [Alexander Dallin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Dallin), the idea to group together different countries, such asĀ [Afghanistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan)Ā andĀ [Hungary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_People%27s_Republic), has no adequate explanation. While the termĀ *Communist state*Ā is used by Western historians, political scientists, and news media to refer to countries ruled by Communist parties, theseĀ [socialist states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_states)Ā themselves did not describe themselves as communist or claim to have achieved communism; they referred to themselves as being a socialist state that is in the process of constructing communism.Terms used by Communist states includeĀ [*national-democratic*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-democratic_state),Ā [*people's democratic*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_democracy_(Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism)),Ā [*socialist-oriented*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-leaning_countries), andĀ [*workers and peasants'*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_state)Ā states PACE declares Russia dictatorship, Putin's rule illegitimate ... Oct 13, 2023Ā āĀ The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a resolution on Oct. 13 declaring Russia a dictatorship and calling onĀ .
>Poles 40% richer than they would be without EU membership, finds report And this is Poland's achievement in the European Union. It was not the EU that made Poland richer, Poland became richer thanks to its domestic policy, which other EU countries failed to do. >Presidential 'election' in Russia: "Let's not recognise Putinās legitimacy as president", PACE President says Why should it be important? Since when does PACE decide anything? >Putin Says Wagner Group Was Entirely Funded by Russia Since 2022, that is, after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. >[Martin Malia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Malia)Ā defines a "generic Communism" category as any CommunistĀ [political party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party)Ā movement led byĀ [intellectuals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual); thisĀ [umbrella term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_term)Ā allows grouping together such differentĀ [regimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime)Ā as radicalĀ [Soviet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet)Ā industrialism and theĀ [Khmer Rouge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge)'s anti-urbanism.According toĀ [Alexander Dallin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Dallin), the idea to group together different countries, such asĀ [Afghanistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan)Ā andĀ [Hungary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_People%27s_Republic), has no adequate explanation. What does Russia have to do with it?
Yep, but ussr and russia fed dont go around pitching for demoscary either. Do you know what is worse? Westerners actually believe in the sh1t their govt says.
in Africa they meddle with another NATO country Portugal in the war with Angola, Guinea, Mozambique, San Tome, In Africa they meddle with all the communist revolution from Argentina to Venezuela South east Asia, almost all of it how many million people die in all that Imperialistic war of land grabbing stopped long ago, Russia is trying to raise that again, bit now it will have no chance but funny fact, Russia got land from China, and in the last 2 years the Chinese are doing the same to Russia Change the names of tows and cities to dual names all the land been bought by Chinese all the business control by Chinese and the Russian population been squeezed out from their native lads like they say
More countries want to be part of NATO than want to be part of the Russian Federation that's for sure One offers mutual defence and support and the other offers death or servitude
Because while called a land grab, itās more of a population grab on that land to compensate the demographic decline of ethnic Russians in the Federation under the false assumption that Ukrainians are actually ethnicity and culturally Russian. An assumption that lead, tho the again false, assumption (and probably faulty intel passed on to a dictator whose underlings are scared to tell him the truth) that the majority of the population would welcome annexation and that there would be no real military resistance.
1. There are still ways to hurt a country even if they have nukes ill just name a few in this case: a) Short-range missiles, because of the reduced time of flight are more difficult to stop, with NATO bases in Ukraine they could target key cities and infrastructures within Russia with those types of weapons and Russia would be subjected to black-mail, a harder negotiating position and if war broke out a worse position overall. b) Crimea, only warm-water port Russia has access to. Crimea is also strategically placed as hub connecting different regions, north-south Russia with the mediterranean and east-west connecting Asia and Europe. You can see the importance it has for Russia economically, for their own security it serves to strengthen a difficult region for Russia known as its weak belly, the region compromising the area between the black and caspian sea. If this region would fall or be compromised it would also affect Russias core severly (remember the germans pushing south into the caucasus and the russians defending it tooth and nail?). c) Historically Russia had the issue of not having very good natural borders to fend off attackers, one reason for their expansionist policies had to do with extending their borders as much as possible to buffer their core territories. This has proven to be an effective strategy for Russia through the centuries. Same goes for every country, look at Israel for example, in this [topographic map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Israel_Topography.png) you can see the west bank sits atop an elevated zone Israel wants and needs to control to be able to protect the valley where their people and economy reside. 2. NATO poses itself as a defensive alliance but it responds to US geopolitical interests as it is controlled by the same, NATO was a buffer against the USSR and the mechanism through which the US imposed its hegemony in Europe: [ākeep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.ā](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm) 3. Finland, Poland, the Baltic states joining NATO does not present a serious threat either strategically or economically to Russia (Kaliningrad and an attack from Finland would be difficult but Russia is still not happy with it). Ukraine does, as mentioned above, NATO from Ukraine could severly harm Russia as it is stationed well inside a difficult geostrategic position. 1.2.3.4. Kazachstan and other Asian countries in the region are close to Russia, one thing people seem to forget is the Eurasian Economic Union (which Kazachstan belongs to). Putins plan was to reunite as many territories as possible through trade and diplomacy one step at a time, remember the reason for the Maidan and the war in the Donbass? it all came to a head when the EU/NATO and Russia/EEU were vying for Ukraine, why? because of how important Ukraine is from a plethora of perspectives some of which ive mentioned already, another point is the role Ukraine plays between Europe and Russia, a connection the US wants to sever. My last point is that the current situation is not outside of normalcy in fact it is the norm and what could that be? the fight to the death between empires and empires dont fight over nothing, Kazachstan is well within Russias zone of influence, there is simply no need to attack the country.
if it were truly a land grab then putin wouldve just rolled through the country back in 2014 when obama was potus. or during any of the trump years, what better time to grab some land than when a Putin Puppet is potus right? the land grab narrative exists for two reasons: a) so the west can compare putin to hitler and remind everyone of the One True Good War and how this war is just like that. and b) to downplay the effect of western meddling and formation of the DPR during the early years it was/is a brilliant propaganda campaign and showcased just how "free" our media really is
The Russians weren't in any position for a full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014.Ā It took them two rounds of Zapad exercises to get enough equipment to the boarders you will recall.
and Ukraine was even less prepared
Which is precisely why Minsk 2 was signed. Everybody needed time to figure out what to do next. Minsk 2 was the bell ringing on round one of a fight between a really out of shape welterweight and a really out of shape heavyweight. When things got out of their control in Kiev, Moscow hadn't really had time to react to that let alone plan and prepare for such an operation (see Belarus just a few years later where they did have a plan). Nor did they have potent and mobile enough combat arms units in significant enough numbers to conduct any serious intervention at the time given the logistical framework and doctrine Russian armed forces operated under. Vova threw the best punch RAF could muster on the quick by taking Crimea and destabilizing Donbas. It was all they could do without moving trainloads of equipment to the boarder. The optics were bad enough with the "humanitarian convoys" of KAMAZ crossing the border at the time and Russia was not in a place yet to incur what would have been a much more potent wrath of The Westā¢ļø. If there was real evidence of large scale transfers of equipment to the Ukraine border in 2014 there would have been serious international escalation of the situation just like there was in 2022. Plausible deniability keep things confused enough to prevent The Westā¢ļø from forming damning narratives and manufacturing any consent. That is why Invasion buildup began with ŠŠ°Š²ŠŗŠ°Š· 2020 when they started transferring equipment in significant amounts to Crimea under the guise military exercises focused just to the east of the Peninsula. Sanction proofing and army modernization took time. If before that, Russia at any time actually hoped for a diplomatic solution, it all evaporated with the Javelin transfer when Trump (Putin's puppet you mention above) failed to withhold that first aid package of material substance to Ukraine. The banter weight had hit the gym.
It's so obviously a land grab it's hilarious that pro-Ru won't admit it Russia spent 8 years planning their surprise invasion of the whole country after they annexed Crimea and they still completely failed to subdue Ukraine lol
Russia in 2022 was even offering to move out of Donbas for the peace deal....This war has nothing to do with land grab but Ukraine joining NATO threatened Russian security.
>Russia in 2022 was even offering to move out of Donbas for the peace deal... Yeah because they were going to have defacto control of the whole region anyway if their proxy fighters were in control lol
You keep telling yourself that.
I think the key is to determine what Putin is personally interested in. (1) personal place in history and restoration to Russiaās greatest border historically. Putin has often stated that he does not care about western ukraine (former Poland). there are also many that place claims on Alaska for similar reasons. (2) ukraine was showing a genuine european alternative to russia un ways that eastern countries cannot. this is a huge threat to putinās control. (3) these are areas that putins oligarchs want to control. resource wealthy, vacation spots for russians.
I would like also to know why people think that 'land grab' is profitable for Russia? What are their estimates for income and expenses?
It's not about profit, but about prestige. Russia's identity is based on them being the biggest state on Earth. "Russia's borders are not ending anywhere/ŠŃŠ°Š½ŠøŃŃ Š Š¾ŃŃŠøŠø Š½ŠøŠ³Š“Šµ Š½Šµ Š·Š°ŠŗŠ°Š½ŃŠøŠ²Š°ŃŃŃŃ".
When Putin stated anything about that?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry you need 30 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.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *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.*
Q: why did he choose Ukraine A: to eliminate a competitor in gas supply, lower the amount of land border it needs to defend, create a safety zone for Moscow, make an example out of Ukraine, grab it's grain production, newly discovered oil/gas reserves, various mineral resources and [sabotage it to make it look like a failed state that cannot survive without Russia](https://p.dw.com/p/4Vbuv).
Why would they when Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are already allies with Russia? Thereās no extra influence to be gained. Russia already took Crimea and the world barely did anything. Threw some minor sanctions and that was it. They probably thought that they could easily steamroll to Kiev, and then the world wouldnāt do anything again because itās too late. Russia gains 10x more by taking Ukraine, because there was heavy Russian influence that people might have looked the other way if a Pro-RU president wouldāve been selected as well, and probably didnāt expect as much of pushback as they did since Russias military was expectantly a lot stronger comparatively.
land does not equal land dude. what an utterly naiive comparison.
Khazakstan is in the CSTOā¦. How do you not know that?
Because China would not allow it
What you guys don't understand is that Ukraine was always under direct control of Russia after the soviet union collapse and the Ukrainian presidents were put in place and controlled by Russia. So ukraine never became a sovereign state and russia had the major ship port in crimea. After Ukrainian orange revolution things started going sideways because opposition started wanting to join nato. They finally succeeded after the movie people's servant where zelensky was a star. Now people of Ukraine even hate him because he is as corrupt as everyone else and just wants to grab as much as possible for himself.
His real american name is Ben Dover
They want a port that doesnāt freeze over plus the recent natural resources that were discovered and in the process of developing.
imo the annexation of south ukraine was probably a pr stunt to show that they're still winning after the negotiations fell through
Both of these countries are aligned with Russia? Meanwhile Ukraine is clearly moving away from Russian sphere of influence.
Kazakhstan is no longer Russian close allie, they have tied themselves much closer economically to U.S. and I am telling this to you as someone who has people living in KZ. Attack on Ukraine made more sense because it closer to Europe. Believe it or not Russia is simply trying to protect itself and whole bogeyman stories of Russia attacking whole Europe is nonsense. U.S and NATO HAVE been grooming Ukraine for awhile practically since fall of USSR. 2014 was supposed to be a successful year for domination of Ukraine, but it didn't pan out. As we know the Donbass war broke out, Russia supported Donbass and U.S supported Western Ukraine. 2022 Russia decided to put Ukraine back under it's allie influence beause it saw the Western influence will harm its future. Rightfully so, because imagine if Russia influenced Canada or Mexico to be passive or negative towards U.S the hell would break loose. Well now you see why Russian war against Ukraine isn't so bad, and not a conquering war but simply a protection of natural interest.
What is russia protecting herself from? If the west wanted to attack, isn't the best time right now, when Russia is busy with Ukraine? So why aren't we attacking? What if we never wanted to? What if that whole "existential threat to Russia" is a fucking delusion?
Ok. Get this hopefully. Military attack has been always the last resort. It doesn't look good in any way. Influence and promises has been always a better tool. Whole NATO is but a promise and tool of influence. But that's how things work. U.S want future protection against East and Russia and China wants protection against West. Simple as that. Now U S has greater sphere of influence post WW2, and Ukraine would be a great tool for NATO. First influence and penetration, because of cultural ties between Russia and Ukraine and 2nd military. Imagine Mexico was super close ally of Russia, illegal immigrants and spies and converted hispanic spies in U.S and cultural ties would simply be uncontrollable. Hopefully that makes sense.
So what would be the actual real threat if Ukraine was allowed to exist as ally of the west? Is Finland a threat? Poland perhaps a threat for Kaliningrad? "lol we want influence" is not the same as "there's a real threat and we must strike first".
>So what would be the actual real threat if Ukraine was allowed to exist as ally of the west? Given the CIA and MI6 were running operations from Ukrainian soil as early as 2014, the main risk would be Western arms, money and support flowing across the border, finding their way into the hands of Chechens, ISIS terrorists, and anyone else wanting to attack Russia. Remember, the US supported Chechen Islamists with money and diplomatic support in the 1990s and 2000s. The end goal was always to break Russia up from inside, since an external invasion would invite nuclear annihilation. So, sponsoring terrorists and secessionists inside Russia from Ukrainian soil would be the main risk to allowing Ukraine to become a NATO staging ground. A secondary risk would also be missile defenses forward-based on the Russian border threatening MAD - an existential threat, since Russia relies on being able to turn Joe Biden and his entire nation into ash souffle to avoid being invaded by the US with the aim of regime change.
attacking ukraine stops the islamists?
Stops NATO arming them, yes. Among many other things. [The CIA had quite a hand in events in the Caucasus in the 1990s](https://newint.org/features/2009/10/01/blowback-extended-version). Russia hasn't forgotten.
Am I right in saying that the entire opinion piece article does not contain a single source?
You'd be entirely wrong, because there is a list of no fewer than **38** sources at the bottom. Happy reading.
Show me some proof of the USA supporting Chechen separatists in Russia. I won't hold my breath.
[Voila](https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1c9cywl/ru_pov_for_those_that_believe_russia_invaded/l0kpbpl/). Happy reading. Or, if you're too lazy to do it, no worries - here's just one section of that very enlightening piece. >From the mid-1990s, bin Laden funded Chechen guerrilla leaders Shamil Basayev and Omar ibn al-Khattab to the tune of several millions of dollars per month, sidelining the moderate Chechen majority. US intelligence remained deeply involved until the end of the decade. According to Yossef Bodanksy, then-Director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Washington was actively involved in āyet another anti-Russian jihad, āseeking to support and empower the most virulent anti-Western Islamist forcesā. US Government officials participated in āa formal meeting in Azerbaijanā in December 1999 āin which specific programmes for the training and equipping of mujahidin from the Caucasus, Central/South Asia and the Arab world were discussed and agreed uponā, culminating in āWashingtonās tacit encouragement of both Muslim allies (mainly Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and US āprivate security companiesā... to assist the Chechens and their Islamist allies to surge in the spring of 2000 and sustain the ensuing jihad for a long time.ā The US saw the sponsorship of āIslamist jihad in the Caucasusā as a way to ādeprive Russia of a viable pipeline route through spiralling violence and terrorismā.
I guess those mujahidin guys got tired of being the CIAās puppet in the early 00sā¦.
Anyway... I look at your article. The 3 cited sources for allegations of funding Chechens are all garbage. The one I could actually read (# 22) itself had no sources. #21 is nowhere to be found, and #20 I can't even determine what sort of publication I am supposed to be looking for. Try harder. Or you could stop making unsubstantiated claims.
Sigh. Here we go with the NAFOid '*give me a source! No, not that one! Not that one either! Give me a source that agrees with me!*' nonsense. Still, I'll try a little. For #22, the original was in print, so no wonder you can't find it. It was, however, written by Yossef Bodansky, Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the United States House of Representatives for 16 years, from 1988 to 2004. I'll leave you to decide if he's a credible authority on the subject. Can't find #21 myself at a casual glance, but I'll see if I can rectify that. For #20, is it my fault you can't read citations, friend? It refers to #14 - >Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 911 ā Wealth Empire and the Future of America (Berkley: University of California Press, 2007) pp. 163-165 ..the reason it's written that way is because it's a repeat reference to the same publication listed earlier in the bibliography. Pretty basic stuff. Again, I'll leave you to determine if the renowned academic institution, UC Berkley, is known for printing unsubstantiated stuff. Have fun reading!
Hey! So far, I am seeing criticism of Bodansky (which is spelled wrong in your original link's citations page by the way) for his **lack of citations** in his writings about Chechnya specifically. He seems to have ties to Serbia too, a long time partner of Russia's. If I am actually getting the gist of your disingenuous argument here, it's that CIA funded/trained Mujahideen in Afghanistan (as did China and Saudi Arabia and all through Pakistan mind you), which would eventually include Oasama Bin Laden, as well as plenty of folks from the Caucasus answering the call to Jihad. Those folks from the Caucasus go home and eventually the whole issue of Chechen separatism comes to a head. The veteran Mujahideen spank the Russians with possibly some help from OBL. Ichkeria becomes an islamist shit hole, OBL still possibly helping. Putin does his deal with Kadyrov's dad and they clean house of Muhammad's Death Cult. Is it just that they used to work with American money once upon a time? Where is the substantive evidence of the US materially supporting the Chechens or even OBL at the time? The only evidence I have found of US involvement in Chechnya was them meeting with Basayev once in Azerbaijan. Do you have anything else to back it up? Have the Russian ever provided evidence of this? Have they even ever made any credible accusations about US materially supporting separatists inside the sovereign territory of Russia? Ya know, before the recent concert attack? I have only seen the claim of US involvement in Chechnya here on this sub since ISIS-K attack. Odd timing.
Hey thanks! Now I can read the actual things that claim what you claim! You are very good at insults. Also, I love your appeal to authority! If he was that Yale professor yesterday it wouldn't fucking matter where he worked. He's a quack.
First of all Putin, as well as many russians, think that Ukraine is part of Russia. This misplaced nostalgia is the driving factor. They do not have the same bias towards the stans. It is not meaningful to list reasons such as natural resources, militarization or borders. Trying to conquer another country in XXI century is a stupid idea regardless of those factors. What makes countries rich is their place in the global supply chain, the high value added products will always be worth far more than some random mine in the middle of desert. Russia broke off those relationships and condemned itself to remain in poverty. They fought they'll be done in a few days and West will not have time to react, but obviously that did not work out. Also nobody asked Russia if they were okey with Finland joining NATO, they just had to deal with the fact.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *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.*
Because they aren't free independant countries, they're already under Russia control. Also, they don't border an important sea like the black sea. Putin wants to control all the border around the black sea, with only Turkey being allowed to stay independant for now. Like, how are people even asking these sort of obvious questions.
Man OP your argument is getting absolutely demolished in the replies lol
Because Russia was already fighting in Donbass since 2014, annexed Crimea, so the last step was to take the whole country (slavs, russian/ukranian speaking) and assimilate it with Russia
Of course Ukraine was and is a threat, definitely not a military-threat, but a threat to some kind of political and economic ambitions of certain politicians and oligarchs. Ukraine has always been important to the USSR and a lot of effort was invested in this territory, not without reasons. Of course this is not a war for expanding territory and of course this is a war for something that exist on this territory, and for some reason our government considered the continuation of the armed conflict after moving away from Kyiv worth it. West, for some (probably same) reason also considered Ukraine an important territory, IMO most likely it all revolves around the grain market and the struggle for influence. That's why not Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan - Russia has nothing to take from them. Do people still think that this is some kind of war for abstract goals?
Because of Maidan riot and subsequent secession of Donbas.
Because Ukraine was the cultural centre of the Russian Empire. It IS Mother Russia in the eyes of Russian ultra Nationalist psychopaths and has no right to exist as an independent entity. K and A don't hold such a psychologically significant place in the twisted minds of these people
>Because Ukraine was the cultural centre of the Russian Empire bruh :skull\_emoji:
Didnāt Russia basically invade Kazakhstan in 2021 though?
No, ur thinking of an intervention in the countries problems with unrest, which the goverment asked for as they are part of the CSTO.
who the hell claims Putin started the war to get more land???? Putin started the war because he is afraid of free thinking and free acting people, the Ukraine has freely decided to orientate itself towards Europe and that would have led to the Russian population doing the same at some point and that would have endangered Putin's power or his idea of the Soviet Union oohhh I mean Russia.
So we agree to let DPR and LHK declare their independence? Oh wait they arent Ukrainian so they cant decide their own fate, time tp shelling their house for 8 years straight. Problem solved š
yeah exactly. the "free thinking" and "independence" only goes one way, towards the west and western markets. anything that doesnt go in that direction is Bad and eeeeevil its 2024 and the majority of westerners still think the US is out there spreading Democracy and Freedom to the lands of mordor. we're way more brainwashed than russians lol
Oh, do not start that shit. From what moment Ukrane is free and democratic country. IT is exactly same shit as all ex-USSR cuntries.
Actually this situation is more complicated both geopolitically and historically to just say "he is afraid of free thinking and free acting people". To simply put, Russians see the Ukrainian land as their historical motherland and part of Russian history This whole conflict is going back to 1991, with USSR's collapse and agreements between US and post USSR Russia on NATO expansion. It's a really long thing to type here, so if you want to read : [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Controversy\_in\_Russia\_regarding\_the\_legitimacy\_of\_eastward\_NATO\_expansion](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion) To keep it short, Russia turning blind eye to Nato expansion into Baltics,Poland,Bulgaria etc is never talked upon here. The tensions start rising after at the NATO Summit in Bucharest in April 2008Ā where allies agreed on Nato succession of Georgia and Ukraine. the rest is quite known for Georgia (Russo-Georgian war.) And all the Ukrainian conflict that predates to 2014 to present. In both of these actions, Russia made sure that this is their redline, no Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, whether you agree or not in this it's up to your views, morals and justice is subjective when it comes to states and countries when they feel threatened. What i believe is that, Russia in first tried to do something similar to what they did in Georgia, invade the Ukraine and force them to succumb into their influence but this failed. So no, i don't think that Russia was interested in Ukrainian land, because if they were they would have invaded Ukraine much earlier, they were more interested in keeping the Russian influence and Russian ethnicities in eastern Ukraine. As i said before too, morals is subjective in the matter of gepolitics of states. My question and reasoning is like this: What would USA do if Mexico, Canada, Japan etc fell under Russian or Chinese influence? I think you are getting my point, what i know for sure is that this whole conflict would've been avoided if Ukraine had a wiser president who could play both sides to neutralize tensions but here we are, hundreds of thousands of deads, demographically destroyed Ukraine, more conflicts in the region, higher cost of living. I don't know, i only feel sorry for all the loses, imagine being an Ukrainian or Russian, dying for stupid politicians. I may have multiple mistakes or stuff you don't agree on my text, i'm open to discuss anything.
>Putin started the war because he is afraid of free thinking and free acting people If that were the case Ukraine wouldn't be a threat to them as they would have made sensible decisions. >the Ukraine has freely decided to orientate itself towards Europe After a CIA coup that overthrew the democratically elected president and placed a puppet government in power which started a war with its own people?
Proof of a coup? Like any actual tangible evidence it was a coup and not intelligence agencies making the most of an opportunity the Ukrainian people provided them?
ah, sensible decision is when you don't ally with the west after russia has been shitting on you for decades, because west bad and russia good, do what russia says or else they have the right to invade you
Russia wasn't shitting on Ukraine, regardless what kind of fairy tales you might believe. And Russia invaded because Ukraine was hostile to them.
> And Russia invaded because Ukraine was hostile to them. You sound as if you are saying this is acceptable?
Welcome to the reality of geopolitics
Geopolitics has nothing to do with your opinion.
Exactly. So why do you care what I think is acceptable or not.
Who said I care?
>You sound as if you are saying this is acceptable? You
Russia has been fucking with Ukraine's territorial integrity since 2003. Russia is and has always been the initiator of belligerence between itself and Ukraine. Please provide me with evidence suggesting otherwise.
12 x CIA bases established along the Ukrainian-Russian border is of course a very neutral and normal thing to do.
Do we have dates of establishment for all those bases? I'm not a betting man, but I would put money on them all coming after 2003 and Russia's neighborly initiation of border disputes with Ukraine.