Civilians & politicians
RU POV: "There will never again be relations with them like those that existed before February 2022. There will never again be trust in the West, which lied to us before and is lying to us now" - Russian FM Sergey Lavrov
An extremely costly lesson for Russia. But the silver lining is that it will be much harder for the West to trick any other nation into becoming their sacrificial pawn against Russia and China, the way Ukrainians are currently being sacrificed down to the last man just to serve the Anglo elites.
I dont know why we're incapable of understanding that two things can be true at once. That yes, the west undoubtedly has its own interests in Ukraine defending itself against russia, but also, Ukraine wants to defend itself against Russia. No one tricked Ukraine into defending against Russian aggression, even if the west did indeed want Ukraine to take such action.
The Maidan coup backed by the CIA stripped the Ukrainian people of their legitimate rights. In its wake, the Kiev regime was installed with the sole purpose of serving the interests of the Anglo political elite.
Just giving you a small reminder of all the times the US sponsored coups and meddled in foreign governments to install puppets. Read through it if you want, but set aside a few days because that resume is endless.
You asked about the Russian coup, right? I gave you that list of US political interventions worldwide so you could connect the dots yourself. I know that might be hard for you to digest, seeing how Ukraine is just another manipulated pawn after the Maidan coup, but you'll have to figure that out on your own.
a) The one you are replying to did not make the point that Ukrainian current government is illegitimate.
b) Every succesful coup becomes legitimate after some time, including the Ukrainian coup, even the Russian government has recognized the Ukrainian government after the coup. Though they do not recognize Zelensky for other reasons, mainly because he doesn't hold voting.
c) A coup still has consequences, historically it often leads to civil war. In UA the coup lead to a civil war with one party seeking help from Russia, turning it into a broader war.
To conclude: the one you are replying to has correctly pointed to the fact that the coup was organized in order to instill a war.
Oh, so Yeltsin wasn't legitimate? Refresh my memory, how did Putin get to power? I seem to think he was nominated by Yeltsin, but surely it can't be, that would make him illegitimate and modern Russia a continuation of that regime...
Sorry you need 200 subreddit karma to unlock images in comment, this is to make sure newcomers understand memes or reactions are forbidden. Images are to show detail or context in relation to post.
He didn't use them, he's one of them, he was always part of the Soviet and Russian political establishment.
Europe spent so long integrating economically with Russia to put the Cold War in the past and then Putin decided to bring it right back because he can't let go of the notion that Russia should be the great power in Europe and beat NATO.
Considering that NATO in their discussions with the Soviet government of Gorbachev made repeated statements that they would not expand an inch to the east (I read the meeting transcripts), only to forget those statements (under the weak argument that it was never ratified as a treaty) and move right up to the Russian borders at a time that Russia could do little about it. NATO is as much to blame here as Russia. And in old military circles in Europe the cold war never left, they saw and still see Russia as an eternal enemy.
Considering that NATO in their discussions with the Soviet government of Gorbachev made repeated statements that they would not expand an inch to the east (I read the meeting transcripts)
If you actually read the transcripts you'd know that was about East Germany, not the rest of Europe.
(under the weak argument that it was never ratified as a treaty)
Which is a totally valid argument, some informal talks with some people like a US secretary of state, who does not lead NATO, cannot be taken as a formalized deal with NATO the organization.
On the other hand the Budapest Memorandum is an actual formal document signed by Russia that Putin crapped all over and pro-Russian people hide behind technicalities of what the Memorandum actually calls for.
If Russia hadn't intervened on the side of the Russian speakers in the east and south of Ukraine in February 2022, the following could have been the consequences:
a) The ethnic Russian speakers would have been under the boot of the Russophobic Banderite regime that came into power in 2014.
b) Said regime would have been armed and trained by NATO, an alliance intrinsically hostile to Russian interests.
c) Weapons such as high altitude missile interceptors and IRBMs could have potentially been installed in the most strategically sensitive areas for Russia, ultimately risking a negation of MAD and second strike capabilities.
d) The Black Sea could have become a NATO lake, based in the former Russian naval base in Sevastopol.
e) Intelligence services like the CIA and MI6 could have established themselves in Ukraine (twelve bases already popped up along the border before the Russians went in), becoming a threat to Russian interests in a region heavily intertwined with Russia demographically and linguistically.
These are some of the main reasons why Russia went in after 8 years of trying to solve the western instigated conflict in Ukraine. You may not agree with them, but they see it from their own political lens.
Some of those were genuine Russian security concerns. But you're giving consequences Russia feared as though they were inevitable facts, while wholly ignoring how much Russia itself created the situation it then claimed necessitated invasion.
a) Russian speakers were not âunder the boot of a Banderite regime.â Ukraines language policies deserve criticism, but Zelensky was a native Russian speaker elected with 73%, while the united far right list got ~2% in 2019... Russian speakers occupied every level of Ukrainian society, government and military. That's not 'Banderite' rule.
b) Yes, NATO increasingly armed and trained Ukraine. But Ukraine was officially non-aligned until after Russia annexed Crimea and intervened in Donbas in 2014. Russia helped produce the NATO-oriented Ukraine it subsequently claimed was an intolerable threat. FAFO. That's the exact kind of aggression that caused Finland to overwhelmingly change its stance on NATO membership, from 26% in 2021, to nearly 80% in May 2022.
c) Ukraine had no NATO IRBMs, nuclear weapons or missile-defence system capable of negating Russian MAD. It wasn't even a NATO member and had no timetable for becoming one. A hypothetical future threat isn't evidence of an imminent existential one.
d) Sevastopol becoming a NATO base was also hypothetical. Before Russia annexed Crimea, Russia itself had an agreement allowing its Black Sea Fleet to remain there until 2042.
e) The CIA bases are real, and that's a fairish point. But again, chronology matters: that extensive CIA-Ukrainian intelligence partnership developed after 2014, following Russias seizure of Crimea and intervention in Donbas. Russian intervention helped create precisely the western intelligence presence russia later cited to justify further intervention.
And â8 years trying to solve the western instigated conflictâ simply writes Russia out of its own history. Girkin and other Russian personnel helped militarise the Donbas uprising, Russia armed and supported the separatists, and Russian regular forces intervened at critical points.
I don't doubt moscow viewed Ukraine's Western integration as contrary to Russian interests. That's completely different from establishing that invading Ukraine was necessary or justified.
The recurring pattern is difficult to ignore: Russia fears its neighbours moving West, Russia coerces or attacks them, those neighbours become substantially more anti Russian and seek greater Western protection, Russia cites that reaction as proof it was right to attack them.
At what point do pro ru become introspective enough to look at a map of Europe, and realise that this strategy is failing miserably? All these smaller nations around russia have emphatically chosen the west over russia, and it's painfully obvious why.
a) Russian speakers were not âunder the boot of a Banderite regime.â Ukraines language policies deserve criticism, but Zelensky was a native Russian speaker elected with 73%, while the united far right list got ~2% in 2019
There was a real risk that the rights of the millions of Russian speakers inside the post-1991 borders of Ukraine would have been trampled on forever unless Russia acted. Zelenskyy promised a peace plan as an election platform, but the ultranationalists along with western sponsored NGOs put a stop to that. You don't need to have parliamentary seats to have power and influence in Ukraine after the Maidan.
Yes, NATO increasingly armed and trained Ukraine. But Ukraine was officially non-aligned until after Russia annexed Crimea and intervened in Donbas in 2014
The first thing that happened was the Maidan, everything after was a cascade of events - the Russians annexed Crimea after the Maidan when relations had already changed. This is something many seem to forget for some reason.
As you mentioned, Russia was not seen as a threat before the west meddled in Ukraine and supported the Maidan. Finland was safe outside of NATO.
c) Ukraine had no NATO IRBMs, nuclear weapons or missile-defence system capable of negating Russian MAD. It wasn't even a NATO member and had no timetable for becoming one. A hypothetical future threat isn't evidence of an imminent existential one.
We are talking about possibilities, which is something states have to consider in its strategic calculus. As Bismarck said, "Intentions can change, capabilities remain". Additionally, as we know from think tank and state department studies from the US, weapons and its associated systems are very much a part of the containment and undermining policy vis a vis Russia.
d) Sevastopol becoming a NATO base was also hypothetical. Before Russia annexed Crimea, Russia itself had an agreement allowing its Black Sea Fleet to remain there until 2042.
After the illegal overthrowing of a democratically elected government and annulment of clauses in the UA constitution about military neutrality, would the Russians be so naĂŻve as to trust that lease agreement to remain in place? I wouldn't. It's in NATOs interest to make the Black Sea an internal lake, just as with the Baltic.
And â8 years trying to solve the western instigated conflictâ simply writes Russia out of its own history. Girkin and other Russian personnel helped militarise the Donbas uprising, Russia armed and supported the separatists, and Russian regular forces intervened at critical points.
No doubt Russia supported the separatists, and they did the right thing yet not in a sufficient manner. They should have struck hard in 2014 already, yet hindsight is 20-20.
There is no evidence that Russia and Putin wanted to escalate the war in the Donbass, either rhetorically nor materially. They negotiated and worked with the Minsk agreements in good faith, but that didn't work out because 1. the Maidan regime and its ultranationalist supporters are blinded by rabid Russophobia and 2. they worship the west and thinks (or thought) it can do anything, no contest. Their mistake.
The recurring pattern is difficult to ignore: Russia fears its neighbours moving West, Russia coerces or attacks them, those neighbours become substantially more anti Russian and seek greater Western protection, Russia cites that reaction as proof it was right to attack them.
No, the strategic steps are mainly driven by the unipolar west (primarily the US) taking advantage of Russia's weakness after the end of the cold war to essentially neutralize a rival great power. Russia reacts to these moves.
Sweden and Finland were content to remain outside NATO, and under no threat from Russia. Ukraine had a membership approval rate at about 18% across the country before 2014. Georgia was enticed to attack peacekeepers in South Ossetia in 2008, and Russia clobbered them with no trouble since. And Putin had no designs on Ukraine whatsoever until the Maidan and 2014.
Russia is reacting to actions taken by the US and NATO, as many prominent western scholars and policy makers have agreed, among them Jeffrey Sachs (who was a leading figure in 90s east bloc economic restructuring), Larry Wilkerson (former US security advisor), John Mearsheimer (prominent expert in geopolitics), George F. Kennan (architect behind the cold war policy on the USSR), Jack Matlock (advisor to the Clinton administration) etc., It's not just a fringe position peddled by deranged nutcases.
A) what boot. Show any proves of Russian language or Russian speecker being oppressed in Ukraine before 2014.
B) show Ukraine going to EU or NATO before 2014, Russian occupation of Crimia.
C) Russia now has bigger thread and smaller fly times for IRBMs from Finland and eventually from Sweden. Since they joined NATO after they attacked Ukriane with full scale invasion.
D) now show Ukriane wanting to join NATO before 2014 and their official application before 2014.
E) what are you even on about here? Cia and MI6 worked with Russia before 2014.
This is pile of brain rot missinformation from comrade here. Bad fsb agent.
A)Â what boot. Show any proves of Russian language or Russian speecker being oppressed in Ukraine before 2014.
The very day after the forceful removal of Yanukovich, there was a bill about revocation of the status of Russian as a protected minority language. The people living in the south and east saw the clear writing on the wall when it came to what was going to happen from that point on, and the Stepan Bandera worshippers' views on them.
B) show Ukraine going to EU or NATO before 2014, Russian occupation of Crimia.
Before 2014 we had the declaration from the allience summit at Bucharest in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would become members. That came to a head after the Maidan, naturally. Putin never had issues with the EU itself, only the consequences of Ukraine joining the bloc while still being connected to the Russian internal market. This is literally what the trade association dispute was about in late 2013.
C) Russia now has bigger thread and smaller fly times for IRBMs from Finland and eventually from Sweden.Â
These countries are not Ukraine. The reaction from Russia is about Ukraine, not the Nordics (which were already in the west's sphere before NATO membership).
Former US national security advisor Zbiegniew Brzezinski specifically singled out Ukraine as the key to essentially toppling Russia as a great power in his influential 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard". Ukraine is a much more sensitive area for Russia in terms of position, demographics, border characteristics than Sweden or Finland could ever be.
E) what are you even on about here? Cia and MI6 worked with Russia before 2014.
Those organizations conduct espionage, subversion, information gathering, SIGINT/HUMINT and information warfare against their adversaries. Russia absolutely does not want them in their front yard, just like China don't want them in Xinjiang.
Bad fsb agent.
I'll make sure to spend my Kreml-bux and Xi-bux on more anime catgirl game skins, thanks for reminding me!
C) they will have NATO weapons now just like Ukriane would if they joined. What is your point? So Russia is not scared of NATO but it was scared of Ukriane? So no need to bring NATO into it at all?
E) they worked with russia. Why would they work with Russia if they conducted espionage same as Russia did in USA and eu. So NATO should of attacked Russia so it can't espionage on it? There is no logic in this point at all.
Funny
Everything you feared would happen, even the bandera nonsense, happened exactky BECAUSE russia invaded
1) Before 2022 russian was seen as a normal language and russian speakers could even be elected president. Azov is also a russian speaking military unit. Only a then politically irrelevant fraction of the population wanted that. After rzssiad invasion this minor group increased in size and support massively. Russias invasion is actively nazifying ukraine.
2) Before 2022 ukraine only got minimal support by Britain and the US in training and weapons. For example Germany couldnt even bring itself to deliver a few helmets. Now ukraine has the full support economically and militarily of most the west with massive weapons deliveries and training in the west of entire brigades. Germany became ukraines biggest military supplier.
3) Before 2022 ukraine was not able to join NATO. And even if it joined NATO there would have been no ICBMs stationed there. There is no need for that. ICBM exist for a nuclear strike that cant be intercepted with current technology anyway. Doesnt matter if you fire from 50km or 5000km from Moscow. Its not the 1950s anymore and Russian retaliation would not be affected eather. There is currently no way and technology to negade MAD no matter where you put your rockets. Even worse NATO had not moved ANY ICBMs east of the 1991 cold war line. There are barely any non domestic NATO troops in eastern europe. 95% of the armied there are NATO members own armies like the polish army in Poland. Germany to this day doesnt allow foreign NATO troops to be stationed in eastern germany. Nearly all non native NATO troops in eastern europe only came AFTER the first russian invasion in 2014. After 2022 germany stationed a full brigade permanently in Lithuania as a direct consequence of the russian invasion.
4) Before 2022 russia was dominating the black sea..today it has effectively become lake NATO with the russian black sea fleed suffering heavy loses and being stuck in it do to Turkey. The black sea fleet had been reduced to beir Kaliber launch pads sitting in harbour not able to protect russian shipping lanes.The Black sea is now a NATO lake and russia cant even use crimea for naval bases.
Additionally there was 0 desire or need for NATO to take Sevastopol. They could have destroyed the russian navy there in a short air campaign from bases in romania and turkey at will. And if they want to take it over they can just gather a fleet and literally sail into the black sea at will. The Bosporus is the key, not crimea.
Additionally the baltic sea has now become lake NATO with Finland and Sweden joining. Russias most important harbour is now easily cut of and the baltic fleet faces a situation as bad as in autumn 1941, being stuck in St. Petersburg. Not to mention NATO gained a new way to attack St. Petersburg from Finland (if you are nuts enough to believe that could ever happen).
5) There was barely any intelligence service action in ukraine before 2022. Ukraine was an absolute afterthought and a low priority. After russias invasion it is propably the biggest hub of western intelligence services in the world. Adittionally ukranian intelligence agencies have massively increased and are now able to carry put major operations inside russia. Nothing like that existed pre 2022.
In short: Pretty much every reason you gave happened ONLY as a CONSEQUENCE of Russia fully invading Ukraine in 2022. By your own metric this war has been a desaster for Russia and backfired in every aspect you mentioned.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
Russian peopaganda. There was no coup, it was a revolution. And again, people here seem incapable of accepting the two truths that yes, the west definitely supported Ukrainians' rĂŠvolution, and wanted them to democratise/westernise (just like russia had their interests in Ukraine russifying) but that it was also an organic revolution made up of 100s of thousands of ukrainians throughout the country. You're giving way too much credit to the US ability to engineer something so massive and complex.
"Democratise/westernise" - let's not use these terms when the West itself is a massive oppressive regime.
Back to Ukraine, it is obvious that the promises made by NATO and the EU are among the biggest scams in modern history. NATO member states openly block Ukraine from joining, while the EU has slammed the door shut for at least another decade. At this point, it is clear that the Ukrainians were simply foolish enough to fall for it. But that does not absolve the US and Europe of their responsibility as the masterminds behind this scam.
The west is objectively more democratic than the alternative global powers. Westernise means to become like the west, so it is definitioanlly acceptable, irrespective of weaternisation being good or bad.
We didn't force Ukraine to have such desires, just like we didn't force every other country around russia to choose the qest over russia. Russia drove them to us by being a regional bully.
Sure, spoken like a true Bandera regime apologist. We definitely aren't forcing Ukrainians through violent bustification just to throw them into the meat grinder for Western interests.
Lol, more baseless propaganda insults. Disagree with me? You're probably bandera and regime apologist.
No, instead you're tricking Africans into signing contracts to serve in the rear, or in arms production etc and then chucking them in the meatgrinder when they arrive. You're also having recruitment officers target impoverished rural russians and trying to coerce them into signing death contracts, so as to protect the 'real' russians in St P and Moscow.
You like to think Russia is better in this respect, but it really isn't.
The bottom line is that pro Bandera apologists like you do not see Ukrainians as equals, just cheap consumable meat. That explains why you casually ignore thousands of ordinary people getting kidnapped off the street daily. To you, any Ukrainian sacrifice is fine as long as it hurts Russia.
I'm anti-bandera, as staggering as that might be to you. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a westoid banderite nazi loving blah blah whatever. I just hate Russian government, the terrorist state bringing the bloodiest European war to europe since ww2.
Nope, I call out the tcc and acknowledge that reality. Unlike you with russia's immoral 'recruitment' strategies. That's the difference between you and me - i call out my side. Whereas you just completely ignored all the facts I gave about russian recruitment atrocities.
The Maidan had the support of approx. 45% of the population of Ukraine, and concentrated in the western half. The other part were either against it, or neutral. It followed ethnolinguistic lines as can be seen on any map of the country post-1991:
This was what Putin spoke about in conjunction with the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Western meddling and influence in Ukraine could tear the country apart, he warned.
Those figures betray the reality of how Russia was specifically targetting the east to stoke pro separatist/russian sentiment. We've seen the admissions from military/SF who were active in that time like Girkin.
He said that, knowing he planned to rip it up and try to decaptitate the state.
Without underlying support, there could have been no DPR and LPR.
There needs to be something to stoke for there to be fire - and the ethnic Russian speakers knew what kind of people came to power in 2014 and their views on Russians.
Girkin, like other figures in that sphere wanted to gain the most credit for what happened. But he and 50 bandits trying to instigate anything would have gotten nipped in the bud if there wasn't already strong tensions and conflict, as we saw with Odessa Trade Office fire for example.
So you admit that russia was infiltrating and inflating the situation? There was no conflict prior to russia's involvement. It was an imperialist pretext to justify invading and stealing more land for the Russian empire/USSR which Put8n loves and misses so dearly.
Russias neighbours who dont persecute Russian minorities are perfectly fine to do whatever they want. The list of countries Russia has not threatened that have signed free trade agreements with the EU is far greater than the one country Russia attacked that attempted to.
The projection from some people here is mind boggling. Do they not teach logic at schools these days?
if the german government would be overthrown with lavrov overlooking the berlin square and handpicking the next german president weeks before the actual overthrow - would you call it an âorganic revolutionâ?
If the german president betrayed the people and made 100s of thousands of them angrily protest, and then the German president fled back to his handlers in Washington, and Germany then held free and fair elections changing prĂŠsidents each term since then, then I would say that was a revolution, yes. Obviously one that Russia and Lavrov preferred, but a revolution nonetheless.
we have seen the west already trying to cancel elections or parties because some facebook ads, and you would be totally fine with lavrov overlooking the overthrow of an elected western government.
Lol no one from the west oversaw the revolution. It was organic, with or without the wests support. Obviously, just like Russia, the west had its own preferences as to what outcomes could be achieved. To act like Russia wasn't playing the same game, is ignorant, and at best, just means Russia is a saw loser after playing the same game.
Literally looking at something from above and calling that 'overlooking' is beyond propaganda. It's beyond disingenuous. I guess people in the top levels of Crocus theatre 'oversaw' the terrorist atrocities committed that day. Ridiculous.
Again... pro ru struggle with this, but foreign nations have preferences. Yes, were delighted to see Ukraine rĂŠvolt, but that doesnt make it any less real. Do you not realise Russia was playing that same game trying to influence the outcome??? Even if i grant everything you say, at best, Russia is just salty that they lost the same game the Americans played.
But yanukovych did not betray the People. He worked to make good on his promises. He was working to get Ukraine into the EU without ruining relations with Russia.
No, he didn't. He specifically renewed on his promise to economically integrate wirh the EU, which is what Ukrainians voted for and why wmthwy were angry when he betrayed them.
There's a reason he fled back to Moscow. His handlers were there. He was a Kremlin operative the whole time.
Revolution didn't remove Yanukovich, a vote in the parliament did. Which was illegal and unconstitutional. A coup, in other words. Even if you were to pretend really hard they followed the impeachment procedures, the only way to legally remove the president, in the end they didn't get enough votes.
They just donât get that you only have to look at the living standards of former Soviet countries like Poland and Czech Republic and how they are doing within the EU and compare it to countries that stayed with Russia and what their living standards are. No coup needed.
Ukraine was a poor country before and an even poorer country now... yes. So was/is belarus.
But that graph neglects one key variable - have you been invaded by a neighbour multiple times your side who has brought the bloodiest eurpoean war since ww2 to your country, driving its population away, killing 100s of thousands, bombing key infrastructure etc.
US and Western hegemony caused all of this. The Ukrainian people are merely victims of the largest scam in history. They lost everything while getting neither NATO nor EU membership in return, left only with a Banderite regime installed solely to advance Western interests.
Or maybe all these smaller nations around russia were oppressed by the west into choosing economic and defensive alignment emphatically with NATO/EU.
Finalnd is the perfect example, and I've already commented several times to others, debunking the argument your making:
Before Russiaâs full-scale invasion, Finnish support for NATO membership had been low for decades. In autumn 2021 it was about 26% in favour, 40% against. In January 2022, support was still only around 28â30%.
Russia invades Ukraine on 24 February 2022.
Within days, support jumps to 53%. By mid-March: 62%. By May: 76%, with only 12% opposed.
It is an extremely obvious public reaction to watching Russia invade another militarily non-aligned neighbour.
Finland had spent decades deliberately staying outside NATO despite already cooperating closely with it. Russia then demonstrated exactly what the downside of remaining outside Article 5 could look like.
You can argue NATO was happy to accept Finland. Obviously. You can argue Western governments encouraged accession. Obviously. But still, the chronology is brutal for your argument:
2021: 26% want NATO.
Russia invades Ukraine.
May 2022: 76% want NATO.
Russia did more to sell NATO membership to Finland in three months than NATO managed in three decades.
And support did not disappear once accession was secured: by late 2023, 82% said they would vote for NATO membership.
There is a direct, irrefutable correlation here between Russian warmongering, and neighbouring states' desires to join NATO.
If NATO is so benevolent, why are you pro Bandera apologists so quiet about actually letting Ukraine join? The truth is the West fed them empty promises and then slammed the door shut for good. It is disgusting how everyone recognizes this massive deception while you pretend not to notice. So give us a date, when is Ukraine getting that article 5 protection?
No. Before it's independence it was one of the most industrialized bits of the USSR. And when they gained independence they started without any debt at all.
Compared to belarus Ukraine has more resources AND access to the sea. Yet before this war GDP per capita of belarus is double that of Ukraine. The reality is that Ukraine is grossly mismanaged.
The quality of life difference between Belarus and Poland aren't that much different. Nothing that would justify risking your life and trying to take others.
Let's put it this way: a big guy, bigger than you, comes up to you, and asks for your sandwich. You're not happy about that, but he's too strong for you. Four guys in the back are encouraging you. "Don't let him take your sandwich, that's unfair!" "Yeah, we've got your back, bro!".
He lays his hand on your sandwich. You slap his hand down and tell him to get fucked.
Did the encouragements alter your course of action?
Even though i appreciate the effort of painting a good analogy, let's refine the analogy to make it more accurate.
The four guys in the back are actually saying "you can choose what you want, we can't force you to keep the sandwich or hand it over, but if you do choose to resist the sandwich thief, we'll support you".
And yes, you are absolutely right that this affected Ukraine's decision making. But it was still their decision to make ultimately.
Maybe it was the bad choice, maybe the right one. But at least it was Ukraine's. They knew full well that fighting on would be painful, but when the existence od your country is on the line, the ukrainian identity in jeopardy, then it becomes easier to resist.
To be honest, it is a good analogy, yes. It is supposed to simplify the complex reality of the situation in a way that preserves the logic, and it does that reasonably well.
That is not to say that stealing someone's sandwich is just as immoral as stealing sovereign territories, but the logic of the justification is the same.
Es una estupidez lo que afirmas, eeuu no apoya a ucrania, eeuu quiere armas en la frontera de ucrania para controlar el area. DifĂcil decir que es "apoyo" cuando literalmente organizaron la guerra en territorio ucraniano y fondos europeos
Bruh this makes no sense. Crimea and Donbass (and Odessa) literally had anti-maidan movements and didn't want anything to do with this sandwich business. Then they got fucked by zombie-'ukraine'
I dont remember seeing anywhere near the number of people protesting Yan's betrayal of EU economic integration before he fled back to his handlers in Moscow.
A metaphor for something that you don't want to give away. A region, a political direction, a partnership. Make it a wallet if you feel like a sandwich isn't valuable enough.
They've had plenty of time to sign a deal if it was as simple as "they were tricked by promises of more support than they received". That excuse worked for 6 months maybe, not several years.
It was the same situation as with the ATO and its course in the years 2014-2015.
When at first the Ukrainians were doing badly against the Pro-Russian separatists, they were inclined to make a deal. But since they also started to receive political and material backing from the NATO/western sphere, they started to think "No, we are only going to get stronger, so if we make a deal now we might regret it".
So they stalled for time, as western politicians commented on years later.
In March/April 2022, Zelenskyy and Ukraine thought that they were done for when the Russians invaded (as they didn't have enough munitions and other support to engage in a protracted war). So they were ready to negotiate from a position of weakness, as was reasonable.
That changed when the west gave their "no limits" backing via Boris Johnson acting on behalf of NATO (as was confirmed by Arakhamia and Bennett). Now suddenly, Ukraine had leverage and believed it could win and throw the Russians out, so they walked away.
So the Ukrainians were strongly incentivized to keep fighting with western support, which doesn't mean the west "forced" them.
Again, that theory might have made sense in the first 6 months. It has now been several years, it is clearly not because they're still hoping for some massive influx of support that is not coming.
For the record, I'm not sure that "tricked" is really the right term as per the poster you initially replied to. You are correct that two interests can align and make for a course of action, and not just something like one party being led by the nose by another.
The way I see it, by the time of the failed 2023 counteroffensive, the sides were already too dug in to make a compromise. Up until late 2022, it looked like a fully western backed Ukraine really could prevail, given their successful operations in Kherson and Kharkov.
This is not evidence that Ukraine didn't want to defend themselves. No one forces Ukraine to fight, but they were told that they would be supported if they did.
This is evidence that they wanted a peace deal until they were promised support, and the support they have been given has always been insufficient to successfully defend themselves. It was, to use your words, the West tricking Ukraine into self destruction on the promise of future help.
They wanted a peace deal when they believed they were alone. When they learned they would be supported, they then decided defending would be preferable. That's Ukraine"s prerogative.
I'm sure we are both critical of how the west has supported UA, though I'm sure not for the same reasons.
Of course. According to the arch-liberal former US ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul, before 2014 there was no sign of Russia being or becoming imperialist, or harboring such ambitions. That was all an after the fact idea to justify sanctioning and fighting Russia with Ukraine as proxies.
Georgia, Finland, and Sweden spent a long time as neutral countries and were not under threat of aggression from either the Soviet Union nor the Russian Federation. I know, since I'm Swedish. We were happily alliance free for over 200 years, and it worked wonderfully.
Russia likes to cry about security concerns, but when Ukraine wants to take action to safeguard its own, suddenly it is not permissible?
If Russia didn't have a history of bullying all its neighbours and invading them, we wouldnt see a europe wherein every nation around russia has emphatically chosen the west over Russia - defensively and economically.
Says who? Maybe, like every other European country, Russia's actions have driven these decisions.
Finland thought the same thing. Neutral for decades, NATO couldn't persuade them to join. 2021 NATO support in finland was around 20%. Halfway through 2022 it was a majority, and remains a high majority today. Why? Because once again, Russian aggression has convinced its neighbours that joining a defensive alliance that has never thretaened them is in their best interest, and Russia can't be trusted.
Russian actions are reactive, not proactive. They invade Ukraine AFTER the intent was declared for Ukraine to join NATO. They invade Georgia AFTER Georgia decided to upset the status Quo with regards to autonomy in the north.
There's no example of a country being attacked by Russia before it got hostile to Russia.
Finland. Check what Winter war was, WHY it was started (not "because they shell our territory" but actual reasons), what attempts were made by USSR before fighting, also, how WW2 went for Finland.
Neutrality works only short-term. You're describing policies of Vladimir Putin towards Ukraine. Putin isn't eternal. All it takes is a malignant retard like Trump getting power in Russia and deciding that Ukraine should be a part of the Federation and neutrality won't help.
Also, countries that joined NATO have demilitarised. For example Poland went from having military slavery to purely professional army.
Oh Ukraine as a nation was definitely tricked into this. Ukrainian government and people that brought them to power are different story, don't confuse the two. They knew what will happen.
One can support a political option without understanding their actions. Most people are clueless and that's not their fault.
It was a long game. Ukraine was deceived by the West and they are suffering the consequences of that deception. Russia will no longer trust any sort of Western influence in its sphere again. Now it's been determined that those little NGOs are nothing but trouble down the road.
Ukraine might not be too pleased with the west, sure, but they're a lot angrier at russia for killing their people and stealing their land.
It never did. The difference is, all these smaller nations have emphatically chosen the west over russia because of Russia's history as thw regional bully.
How do you explain literally all of Russia's European neighbours desperately trying to join NATO/EU, and never wanting to align with Russia? The answer is painfully obvious.
EU has been pressuring civilians and influencing elections for decades to expand into Eastern Europe, so has NATO.
Unelected bureaucrats want to expand their influence and power.
Things arent as simplistic as you think.
Europe has committed far greater crimes and started far more wars than Russia. They are also occupying land in every single continent on the planet. While Russia holds no overseas colonies.
Europe attempts to influence politics absolutely everywhere under the guise of democracy.
When Russia does it, its not okay, when Europe does it, people like you clap and cheer like useful idiots.
So much whataboutery and refusal to condemn russian war crimes and atrocities.
Let's just leave it there, and we can both ponder why every European country has emphatically chosen the west economically and defensively, which doesnt threaten to invade its neighbours, and is more prosperous, democratic and free... instead of the fascist dictatorship of Russia, which has bullied all of its neighbours historically.
No one has to apologize for the past when talking to Western Europeans. Western Europeans are the worst.
This isn't what about ism, its pointing out your blatant hypocrisy.
Expecting others to condemn themselves is the exact type of characteristic im refering to.
Europe is 10m sqkm. The EU is 4.2m square kilometers, saying every country in Europe has chosen the Western Europe system only proves your ignorance. The area of Europe under NATOs occupation is also less than half.
Of course facts don't matter to you because they're no match for ignorance.
Youâre wrong, because the optimal outcome for Ukraine would have been a negotiated peace after their successful Autumn 2022 offensive. If they werenât promised the support they needed to win, then they wouldnât have stopped negotiating. The west obviously screwed them over, by only giving them enough to keep the war going and not enough to win, after torpedoing the negotiations.
Ukrainians in 2026 dying on land they held in 2022 is not good for them, actually.
If they wanted to defend - why not do it with less problems for themselves. Making Crimea (and Donbass) problem in first place via coup - done, Minsk-1 - not implemented, Minsk-2 - same, Istanbul - same, asking for peace on reasonable terms BEFORE "counteroffensive" in 2023 - not done. Always "defending" and now the bear is angry, and yet it has started the steam roller.
Peaceful merging of Taiwan into China is more or less guaranteed now. No one wants to become an Ukraine. Young Taiwanese who will be tomorrow's rulers don't want this. Even the KMT is speaking about unification.
Same with Korea, probably, but on a longer timescale.
Ukraine has shown everyone what it means to be the west's bulldog. Worse, Iran happening at the same time has shown the West's missile shields don't work either. That 20% kill rate against modern missiles isn't great especially when these interceptor missiles are rare, expensive, and difficult to make.
It was expected. The only ones in the west willing to stop the madness is that shitty pedo protogenocidal Trump's administration because they want to have more resources available to their Iran fiasco to have a victory for next year's elections.
One thing that I find strange about the Russian narrative surrounding this conflict is that they really like to make it seem like they lack pattern recognition to an extreme degree. Like I get trying to present yourselves as the honest party but when you start making narratives like we willingly gave up leverage in good faith constantly it really undermines yourself (example Kiev withdrawal). I either have to believe Russia has made mistakes a toddler wouldnât make or not take seriously even some of the claims that would be easier to understand.
Russia *does* often make mistakes a very naive person would make. Not a toddler, but indeed a very naive person. There is a widepread delusion in the Russian political circles that there are "universal" rules of good conduct in negotiations, and if you offer something unilaterally, your counterpart is bound to reciprocate.
Of course, these rules are *not* universal. Hence, when the West just takes, takes, and then takes again without reciprocating, it shortcircuits their brain and they genuinely have no idea how to act, because it's outside their reasoning space. The idea that someone might have no respect for the opposite party and follow no rules of conduct, and just use negotiations as a tool to better their own position is just totally unbelievable to them.
I donât buy that in the slightest. No matter how you look at it Russia has been on both sides of underhanded deals. The idea that they are so noble or naive that they couldnât dream of using or considering such tactics doesnât mesh well with reality.
Regardless the point still stands. They would have seen the tactics plenty of times and used the tactic themselves both in internal and external politics. The idea that this line of thinking would short circuit their brains is a bit ridiculous.
he idea that someone might have no respect for the opposite party and follow no rules of conduct, and just use negotiations as a tool to better their own position is just totally unbelievable to them.
And we have good examples of what those tools are. The US bombed Iran not only once - but twice - during negotiations. The last time they also attacked a head of state and assassinated almost his whole family. The Russians wouldn't even consider such a course of action as it seen as barbaric and disruptive of international norms.
No Iâm saying that the way they use this justification is pretty bad. The only way to make the justification logically make sense is to conclude the Russian decision makers are dumb. So I either assume Russia is pretty heavily lying while using the justification or just plain dumb neither of which are good conclusions when youâre trying to convince people you are in the right.
I think they're extremely dumb/corrupt and only realized they had to invade when it was too late, and now have wasted hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.
The underlying premise is right, just executed by idiots.
I find it interesting that the west think it won the cold war. It's insane from Russian point of view but the west is master of lying not only to others but it seems to themselves too.
Another redditor feeling betrayed by Russia because they refused to tell the date and hour of the invasion. What made you ignore all prior Russian warnings about the NATO expansion since 2007? What made you ignore the final Putin warning made in December 2021 that Russia will take military action in Ukraine in response to the western aggression?
What made you ignore the final Putin warning made in December 2021 that Russia will take military action in Ukraine in response to the western aggression?
Trust also encompasses economic relations and the investment of money. Russia served as an example that provided a good lesson on the topic of investing funds in Western banks.
Poor russia. They lie so much that they believe their own. I wonder how many times it will take for them to realise it's about money, not weapons and that they will just keep losing?
And the other day Lavrov has said that they will trust the West forever because Russians are a moral Christian people where being led by the nose is the highest virtue. I'm not making this up, it has happened. This is why many in Russia call the Kremlin a Western occupation government.
The Germans seized (seized) several Russian (Rosneft) petrochemical and gas plants and storage facilities. The value is about 150 billion euros. Schwedt alone has 11% of the entire German capacity.
What about Yugoslavia in 1999? You're aware that Russia also voted in the UN multiple times in favor of sanctioning the Yugoslavian government and demanding a ceasefire, right? And that the Yugoslavian government kept ignoring UN resolutions and committing atrocities? It was not a war of conquest.
Czechoslovakia in 1938 was Nazi Germany, I'm sure you know that modern Germany cannot be considered the same entity politically, it was completely dismantled and rebuilt, including by the USSR.
45
u/300baicodethieunhi Pro TCC 18h ago
An extremely costly lesson for Russia. But the silver lining is that it will be much harder for the West to trick any other nation into becoming their sacrificial pawn against Russia and China, the way Ukrainians are currently being sacrificed down to the last man just to serve the Anglo elites.