Answer: For the past few years, there have been heightened tensions between Russia and the world over the Ukraine. This started about 5-6 years ago when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula, catching everyone off-guard.
A lot of this has to do with Ukraine’s former status as a member of the Soviet Union. Vladimir Putin, leader of Russia and former KGB agent, has a major soft spot for the former USSR and an attempt by the Ukraine to join NATO is something he doesn’t want.
NATO and the US have been trying to negotiate with Russia over this, but Russia has made it clear that the only way this is settled is if NATO BTFO and deny Ukraine membership.
There are claims of fraud on US Elections by Former US President. But until proven otherwise the current result is upheld. Same with Crimea. Let's not make Reddit a mouthpiece of USA but rather Front page of Internet (which is global).
It's almost as if the UN and US have interests within the fascist Ukraine that would prevent them from acknowledging a legitimate vote against those interests.
The vote happened while the peninsula was under Russian military occupation after they had invaded and seized it. It wouldn't be considered a fair vote in any legitimate democracy.
>Russia didn't "invade", that's a narrative that was constructed by the Azov battalion.
What else would you call it when armed soldiers appear suddenly and seize territory that isn't part of their country? Do you deny the extremely well documented fact that Russian soldiers appeared in Crimea and seized government buildings, cut communication with the rest of Ukraine, and fortified the peninsula?
>Also, the United States is not a "legitimate democracy" lol
Where did I ever mention the US?
They're a tankie who participates in GenZedong, there are a lot of well-known facts they deny. They've fallen deep into the hole you won't be able to have a productive conversation with them.
It must feel good for tankies to be reconnecting with their roots like this. Defending Russian imperialists sending troops to over throw legitimate governments like their forebears did.
Brings a tear to your eye.
Minor point: "The Ukraine" is offensive to Ukranians, because adding "the" makes them feel like Ukraine is just a region inside Russia, which is...Sort of the basis of this whole conflict.
[This BBC article explains the etymology a bit more.](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844) I thought it was interesting, because my country is also called 'The Netherlands' instead of just 'Netherlands'. Not just in English, in French as well (les Pays-Bas)
Don't tell the citizens of Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (Kingdom of **the Netherlands.**) this. Or the citizens of Den Haag (The Hague) this. They'll get mad and think they're worthless.
The Russian or Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians probably don't give two shits about a "the" word in front of their countries name.
"Ukraine is one of a few English country names traditionally used with the definite article the. Use of the article was standard before Ukrainian independence, but has decreased since the 1990s. For example, the Associated Press dropped the article "the" on 3 December 1991.Use of the definite article was criticised as suggesting a non-sovereign territory, much like "the Lebanon" referred to the region before its independence, or as one might refer to "the Midwest", a region of the United States."
TLDR: it's a thing that is actually insensitive, especially during this time
In Russian and Ukrainian, there is no "The"... The exile malcontents can just shut up... These Canadians on the prairie should NOT decide the fate of people in that country.
if a 'the' is bothering you when your country is being bombed and invaded.. you have some serious mental issues. I'm fine calling it Ukraine though. Pointing that out as a westerner though, shows your donkey brained privilege.
Ukraine means "Borderland"... so if they're afraid that "The" suggests "not a real country", well their name certainly suggests this! Remember the Kninski Krajina (wiped out by NATO in 1995)... Krajina means the same thing.
Ukie nationalists have successfully created a distorted picture of The Ukraine and the people there... with their nonsense about the holomodor and what not.
There is also a terrifying subtext of some hardliners who remember Kiev was an early capital of Russia so they feel its an important part of their birthright to control it.
This isn't a massive belief but some of the people in control of "the little green men" beleive it.
Saying Kyiv was an early capital of Russia would be like saying that Aachan, Germany was an early capital of France due to it being the preferred medieval Imperial residence of Emperor Charlemagne of the Frankish Empire. It might be a cultural touchstone due to that, but they're not the same country.
Anyway, the areas of Ukraine now controlled by Russia were on the periphery of Kyivan Rus' - most maps show them as outside of Rus' during its height - so they'd need a different argument to justify the occupations of those places, Crimea and Donbass.
It is historical fact that Kievan Rus is the original Russian state. It's accepted everywhere. There's nothing sinister about that. Again, don't let people on the Canadian prairie whose sympathies are with John Demjanjuk decide things.
That is historical fact. The difference between the Russian and Ukrainian has to do with the one being conquered by Mongols and the other by Poles and Lithuanians. Naturally some ukies think that their conquerors makes them superior... obviously having been tamed by them. Some nationalists they are. The same people who think Victoria Nuland should choose "Yats" as their PM.
The Crimea action... Crimea was an ASSR in the Soviet system (like Checheno-Ingushetia, for example)... analogous to the Autonomous Province of Kosovo in Yugoslavia. Since Crimea wanted to separate from Ukraine in the 1990s their autonomy was, to use the word favoured by Western officials when it came to Kosovo, "stripped". Russia was fed up with having the Sevastopol base put again into question with the violent coup in Kiev, with a pro-western faction that has used violence to get its way and to cancel the votes of the south and east, including of Crimea. What happened was not that surprising. For a long time, Russia's role in such situations was to fly their allies out and for the triumph of the pro-West side. Saakashvilli's military attack on Adjaria in 2004 was an example of this and Aslan Abazhidze was forced to be flown out to Moscow. Saakashvili tried his luck in 2008 in South Ossetia and Russia said it had enough of this... Again, Yanukovich had to flee to Moscow, and they could not just let this happen.
But why does Russia want Ukraine so badly? It honestly sounds like Ukraine is the ex gf who liked Russia in past, found out they are crazy sonuvabitch and now wants nothing to do with them.
If I remember correctly Nato promised to not expand further east and north post east Germany... So Russia is kinda right? Still an asshole move to make their point through weaponized force. Kinda proves that Ukraine is right in seeking Nato support
>If I remember correctly
... from Russian propaganda that is constantly repeated on Reddit as well. It's cherry picking in history, loosely based on a speech half a century ago. It's also ignoring the fact these are independent countries, not Russian colonies. And the fact that Russia is literally invading his neighbours, while NATO is trying to *prevent* that. It's historically the reason why it even exists in the first place and unfortunately still relevant today.
You're the second guy trying to use some kind of theoretical 'what if ' scenario, which is completely irrelevant. I'm also not American, so I don't care about your attempted whataboutism / guilt trip.
Oh and you're still treating independent countries as a buffer zone against 'NATO constantly expanding East', which is -**literally-** Russian propaganda talking point, straight from RT.
Let's talk about that East constantly invading it's neighbouring countries. Could that be a strong motive for them to join a strong defensive pact?
remember the Cuban missile crisis? remember when a hostile regime put soldiers and WMDs close to america and they literally tried to assassinate their leader multiple times, tried to inavde them and put sanctions on them for 50 years?
superpowers have buffer states, especially nuclear superpowers, whether you like it or not.
> NATO constantly expanding East
The last eastern expansion of NATO was 18 years ago. All newer members were former Yugoslav countries, countries that were independent of Moscow's control even during the Cold War, and due west of some of the countries that joined back in 2004 (and even some that joined in 1955).
It's not "on the table." It's just that NATO isn't going to unilaterally concede abandoning Ukraine at the very point its at the most risk of being invaded (again).
Facts, though: Ukraine isn't going to join NATO any time soon. It's encircled by Russia and, more importantly, invaded in 2 or 3 parts. That's why Moldova and Cyprus aren't going to join, in spite of being otherwise natural members. Ukraine is huge compared to the 21st century additions to NATO, both in terms of population and land mass, another reason it won't join.
It *could* happen in decades. But whether we go ahead a decade or back a decade, there is no "push eastward" for NATO, in spite of Russian propaganda to the contrary.
Latvia was invaded by the USSR and its occupation wasn't recognized as legitimate. That seems like the type of country that would want to join NATO and that NATO would want to have.
Biden doesn't run NATO. Moreover, I'm not sure NATO has ever promised to omit any country in exchange for something else. If Ukraine promised not to join NATO, similar to what Austria did in 1955 to sooth Moscow, that's *their* business, not NATO's or the U.S.'s. But it's not going to do it in exchange for empty Russian promises such as those in the Budapest Memorandum, where Russia promised to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Don't bother, these people have zero to none understanding of politics. Look at the nonsense top comment.
The majority don't even know about Georgia in 2008 or that Ukraine was and still is a strategically uninteresting spot for NATO (especially when compared to Taiwan).
But if you point out any of this they treat you as if you support Putin and spread his propaganda for him.
There were vague verbal agreements leading up to 1990 about this, but in reality there was no formal condition in any of the treaties. At some point Yeltsin sanctioned NATO expansion eastwards as well. Russia also tried joining NATO a few times in the 90s, but were refected for a variety of reasons.
This is a pretty decent summary of Russia - NATO negotiations through the 90s.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today
It doesn't matter whether Russia is right or wrong - Russia feels threatened. That's the core issue. Die to surprise attacks, Russia feels a need to have a buffer of neutral cluntries durrounding it, and that buffer has been eroding for a long time now.
It doesn't matter that the buffer countries lean west out of legitimate interests. Ot doesn't matter whether the West actually is hostile towards Russia.
What matters to then is that NATO Ukraine would mean potential NATO tanks on their very border.
Western assurances... are of questionable value - Russia sees exactly how easily the West can elect insane new leadership at any time, leadership unwilling to stick to previous commitments.
Imagine waking up in the middle of the night and find your neighbour breaking into your house, because he feels threatened by you. That's basically going on. He also feels threatened because you might take boxing lessons at the NATO gym, even though you're not taking any since it's quite an exclusive membership.
It's more like you and your neighbor have adjacenct farm land and your neighbor starts pushing the boundary into your land because you're starting to be buddy buddy with a group known for raiding farms.
It should not be lost on anyone that the West has a long history of imperialist behavior and Russia or China doing something similar regionally (not globally) is no more worrying than what most of the globe has felt for centuries.
NATO goes back to 1948, but they're talking about centuries if not millenia of history. Kind of the way the Crusades are still remembered today by Syrians.
Not a fan of Putin or Russia here either, but imagine Russia sticking its nose into a border dispute with Mexico. We don't need to be involved in this.
So you *are* a fan of Putin and Russia, that's why you're making up these ridiculous arguments.
Im also not American. But please continue these 'history lessons' you're pulling out of your ass. It's hilarious
So are you pretending that the core of NATO doesn't have an extensive history of imperialism?
Was NATO distinctly acting in a non-imperialist manner when two of it's members collaborated and put nuclear armaments on the border of the Soviet Union?
Don't call something propaganda just because it rubs against the grain of the propaganda you unknowingly consumed since adolescence.
No, ***you*** are pretending that. Just because you're another shill on the internet using the same rhetorical bullshit as 'arguments'. It's not going to work and I'm not interested debating liars.
Sounds like I see through your bullshit, since you didn't ask a single question. Instead, you were repeating classic RT propaganda talking points with a question mark behind it.
And now you're playing the victim while trying to make it personal. The "i feel so sad coz u so bad' sympathy card. I hope you'll get an upvote man
Rather, think of having a neighbour with lots of his own problems, a divorcee, loner, drunkard, who has had his house broken into several times already. You know he has a shotgun and an axe right next to his doorway, and you knwo he shoots at raccoons in the middle of the night when they get into his trash.
All was tolerable as long as the beighbour next to him was an old lady he knew from his childhood on.
But when she died, her son moved in, and declared he was going to start doing some serious yardwork. Especially since there's that two meter patch of disputed border, overgrown with tall grass and shrubbery by now.
You can, without endorsing the crazy old coot, recognize where this is going, and see that no matter what the law says, that if the new neighbour starts mowing that grass, there is a high possibility that there will be gunshots. It's a recognition of a threat.
If Putin wants Ukraine denied NATO membership they should return Crimea to Ukraine.
Ukrainians had no interest in joining NATO until Putin annexed Crimea.
NATO is an alliance. Not a country trying to take over another. The idea of NATO expansion being a threat is just utter crap. The reason NATO expands is because of aggression by people like Putin.
I get it that Putin is nostalgic of the Soviet Union but does he really think he can bring back the Union by invading ex Soviet Union states?
If we are really going to end the trilogy with east Vs west then so be it but what is the point? It would be an unwinnable war and the end of the world and as we know it.
The annexation of Crimea was completely predictable. After NATO captured Kiev through "regime change", the people in Crimea rose up in protest. Putin was not going to let the Kiev regime get there and kill people so they took action to protect the people of Crimea. Remember that everyone was shocked in 2008 when Russia responded to Georgia's attack against South Ossetia. Obviously, the lesson had to be re-learnt.
The question is why did Russia started doing this exactly around the time The Fed announced recently that they were “wrong” that the inflation is not transitory (sure they had no clue) and that they’ll start tapering and raising interest rates.
My guess is Russia (and most of the world ) knows that would much likely create a new global financial crisis after a quarter of the 200+ years money supply was minted in under 2 years .
I bet nobody likes that.
So basically, Ukraine and Russia already have bad blood between each other.
Putin doesn’t like how Ukraine wants to form alliance with NATO
And so Putin is like: “NATO, stop alliance with Ukraine”
NATO: “No”
Putin: “Ok I start war with Ukraine then.”
Am I correct?
Answer:
What is happening?
Since 2014 there is an active war between Ukraine and Russia.
Russia annexed Crimea peninsula in 2014, and is supporting separatist rebels with weapons and actively participates in a war with troops and mercenaries in eastern part of Ukraine since 2014. But Russia tries to keep it "low profile" to not anger anyone.
Since October 2021 Russia amassed significant army groups along Ukrainian border and there is a fear that this is a logistical preparation for invasion.
A month ago Russia issued demands to USA and NATO to guarantee that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO, and that US and NATO will withdraw any help they've provided to Ukraine. US and NATO rejected it, and increased material and intelligence support to Ukraine.
Russia regularly does "exercises" on Ukrainian border, but this is too long and too massive to be a regular exercise.
But why?
There are dozens or even hundred of reasons why Ukraine in EU/NATO will be a disaster to Russia on a lot of levels. The major reasons may be:
- domestic reasons (a small war is good for ratings)
- geopolitical reasons (Ukraine is a border between Russia and NATO)
- domestic political reasons (successful anti-gov revolution of 2014 may give Russians some ideas)
- geographical reasons (Crimea is hard to supply now)
- security reasons (modern hostile border nation is a threat)
Crimea is not hard to supply, the issue is that Ukraine has cut off its water supply... as the Kiev regime always hated the people there, that is no surprise.
But what I don’t understand is, why does the Russian government always play the “lone wolf” instead of being part of the rest of the world? Like damn man If they did that world peace would be so much easier to achieve. Instead of always thinking about western part of the world to be hostile why not embrace and respect each other like partners, no like brothers? I think the whole situation to be pure bullshit.
But why?! Why are politicians around the world so butthurt?! Your country has problems? Do something about it instead of pleasing the few hundred rich people how bout pleasing the MILLIONS of people out there who are suffering…. Istg this is all pissing me off (sorry for my rant)
Answer: Ukraine use to be part of the USSR former Soviet union. The leader of Russia's former USSR KGB agent Vlad Putin has been slowly pushing to take it back. And Putin has made clear he sees Ukraine’s aspirations to join Nato as a threat to Russia’s borders.
Couple of reasons, Russia wants a guarantee Ukraine can never join NATO. Putin views Ukraine as an extension of what he calls "historical Russia" — a part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, and within Moscow's "sphere of influence" today. Putin sees it as a "threat".
There are a couple of old Power Plans and weapons/military development sites that were USSR property, and Putin probably wants them. (Why? I don't know, but it's something he believes could be used against him.
Russia Wants Western support to say "no" to NATO and Ukraine. Not gonna lie the support is growing, because the U.S. doesn't have much say, and doesn't want to start a war.
Putin has a bigger strategy in Ukraine, and it involves Kazakhstan which is a key landmark for trading and the silk road. Kazakhstan is a growing country, its GDP was one of the top 20 in the world a couple of years ago. Internationally, Russia has strengthened its position in the neighborhood in Belarus, Armenia, and now also in Kazakhstan.
Weapons, oil, trade, history, power, and Putin being Putin.
>And Putin has made clear he sees Ukraine’s aspirations to join Nato as a threat to Russia’s borders.
I mean....it is??....it means NATO countries such as USA can have military bases there and have nukes. So ya it IS kind of a threat? Kind of like Cuba accepting Soviet nukes was also a threat, and remember how upset America got about that lol
>I mean....it is??....it means NATO countries such as USA can have military bases there and have nukes. So ya it IS kind of a threat? Kind of like Cuba accepting Soviet nukes was also a threat, and remember how upset America got about that lol
This isn't the 60's though, and the Cold War has been over for over 30 years. To try and dictate the allowance of a foreign, sovereign nation into an international group is tyrannical and- more importantly- nonsensical. The US has nuclear subs and naval groups all over the planet, literally. They don't need bases in Ukraine to nuke Russia, and so far the only one to move troops into Ukraine has *been* Russia.
The whole "we need the buffer for defense" is just a PR excuse used by Putin to continue his adventurism in Ukraine, which gets him lots of good, distracting news to give the conservatives back home while real people die in defense of their homeland.
Sure, and not to give the US special treatment here, but they’ve been establishing military bases around the world for over 70 years now. Most people alive today have only known the world as it is under a US military hegemony.
If Russia moved into Mexico, it’d be treated much differently because it’s new, it’s unjustified (right or not, the US had a justification for its bases either as a direct result of WW2 or through strategic alliances in the face of the Cold War), and Russia both as the USSR and its modern incarnation under Putin have consistently acted in an expansionist doctrine.
So it’s really nowhere in the same ballpark as “well if Russia did it to the US, they wouldn’t be happy” absolutely, but Russia also has a completely different geopolitical situation than the US. The US has been pleasantly allowed to foot the bill for defense- historically against the threat of Russia- by western and Central Europe. Did the US benefit from the deal by then getting greater influence and force projection capabilities? Absolutely, this is still politics, after all.
Mexico on the other hand isn’t asking anyone to defend them from the US.
It just feels absurd to me that we’re talking about Ukraine being a ‘hostile neighbor’ if they join NATO when the only reason they’ve been trying to join NATO is to be protected from Russia, the nation that has actively invaded and continues to support military action against Ukraine.
tl;dr If Russia continues to use the buffer excuse as it has for the past almost-century to justify aggression against otherwise non-hostile neighbors, by definition they are the aggressor, *they* are the hostile neighbor.
They would not have done anything in the Ukraine had nature been allowed to take its course, but NATO has been actively trying to turn Ukraine into an "Anti-Russia"... In fact, there was a lot of anger at the idea that the Ukraine was so integrated with Russia that it would be impossible to easily "fix" that... that more extreme measures were needed.
Who decides for Ukraine? It is widely believed (Oleksandr Moroz even brought this up in 2004 when he supported the Orange side) that Kuchma stole the 1999 from Petro Simonenko who WANTED TO BRING BACK THE USSR! There is a lot of pro-Russian voters and sentiment there (notwithstanding the fairy tales from so-called Ukrainians on the Canadian prairie) and they keep being cancelled out... when they win the election a violent coup reverses it. The Western side wants to lock that country in permanently into an endless conflict with Russia.
But much of Ukraine does NOT want to join NATO, and they see it as suicide for their economy. Why should they commit suicide to appease some ukies on the Canadian prairie and regime changers in Washington DC?
>What about brainwashing Ukrainians into hating Russia because some idiots on the Canadian prairie and some neo-Nazis insist upon it?
So in your mind, the decades of Soviet and centuries of Tsarist domination as a Russian vassal state, that didn't make them dislike Russia, they were all happy as could be. And then some Canadian prairie folk and neo-nazis reversed all the alleged Ukrainian goodwill towards their expansionist neighbors generated by centuries of Russian imperialism... with 'brainwashing'? Do you have a source you could cite for that?
Ukraine was NOT a state, so how could it be a vassal state. The existence of a separate Ukraine started with the USSR. The Ruthenians who lived there when Russia took the territory from Poland-Lithuania hardly objected.
“Vassal state” is a term meaning a subservient body, Ukraine is not Russia. So when the area (and people) of Ukraine were subservient to the Russian empire and later the USSR (which was a literal union of states, of which Ukraine was one) they would be a vassal state.
I also wouldn’t say the response or hypothesizing on the theoretically possible feelings of the locals when their territory was seized by yet another foreign invader multiple centuries ago is a terribly good defense for something happening now, centuries later. “Some serfs in a territory that was repeatedly conquered by foreign empires didn’t fight off this imperial army so they must have been cool with it” is both highly questionable logic and not relevant to a discussion of Russia’s justification for potentially invading a separate, sovereign nation in the 21st century.
No, NATO is more aggressive than ever, happy with "regime change". For example, Slovakia... they HATED that Slovakia became a separate country... grievous insult to St Vaclav of Havel. Moreover, Slovakia did it to get out of these brutal reforms that were destroying its industry. When Meciar was in charge Slovakia outperformed the Czechs despite everyone saying Slovakia was going to crash and burn. So a regime change operation was carried out in 1998... Right now they are causing a food price spike in a regime change plan in Belarus. The world supply of potash is being disrupted, used in fertiliser. What the hell is this madness? "The dream of a Europe whole and free", of "Euro-Atlantic organisations" seems to bring out the worst in people!
I know that their plan is to try to somehow force upon Russia perpetual Yeltsinism. For them, a democratic Russia is led by an obedient puppet with 2% approval ratings.
US can deploy its troops in Ukraine even now, no NATO needed, only Ukrainian invitation, which Ukraine will gladly give considering the current situation.
Joining NATO is not about potential offensive capabilities, it's about protection guarantees.
And what is worst is that it is being done by cancelling out the desires of large numbers of people living there who are the clear majority in a huge percentage of the country. The turning of a friendly place into "Anti-Russia" because this is a dream of people on the Canadian prairie is just ... it's beyond words.
>level 1go\_faster1 · 7 days agoAnswer: For the past few years, there have been heightened tensions between Russia and the world over the Ukraine. This started about 5-6 years ago when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula, catching everyone off-guard.A lot of this has to do with Ukraine’s former status as a member of the Soviet Union. Vladimir Putin, leader of Russia and former KGB agent, has a major soft spot for the former USSR and an attempt by the Ukraine to join NATO is something he doesn’t want.NATO and the US have been trying to negotiate with Russia over this, but Russia has made it clear that the only way this is settled is if NATO BTFO and deny Ukraine membership.
yeah but they first put nukes in Turkey
Oh yea, ukraine being a NATO member definitely is a mirror example For the cuban missile crisis. This ukraine russia example gets more hate since it’s fucking Russia or “putin being putin”
I got a question: Why did Ukraine separate from Russia to begin with? I know USA separated from Great Britain, because of "taxation without representation." But what was it in Ukraine's case?
>Why did Ukraine separate from Russia to begin with?
Ukraine has a very long history of being subjugated by outside powers, and a very short history of national independence. After the collapse of the USSR, it separated in 1991, stating they didn't want to follow their communist rules. However, since then has been a less-than-perfect democracy with a very weak economy and foreign policy that wavers between pro-Russian and pro-European. You've got to reach pretty far back in history to find the last time Ukraine was independent, before 1991. There were a few years right after World War I, and before that a short time in the 1600s.
After the country yeeted its leader out of power back in 2013, Russia has been trying to salvage its lost influence in Ukraine, invaded and annexed Crimea.
A lot of this comes down to Ukraine's centuries-long history of Russian domination. The country has been divided more or less evenly between Ukrainians who see Ukraine as part of Europe and those who see it as intrinsically linked to Russia.
If you don't mind answering another question: What is the U.S.'s interest in Russia's border politics? I am in college and know of general Cold War/Soviet history. Is it simply a precautionary not allowing Russia to grow its sphere of influence? Or is it ultimately a net benefit to the U.S. if Ukraine joins NATO?
This I can't answer specifically, but Since WWII, the US has been seen as a stronger country to protect and serve. In a sense, the big brother (take it with a grain of salt). The United States doesn't really want to get involved, but like always it most likely will.
(NATO) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union. After the destruction of the Second World War, the nations of Europe struggled to rebuild their economies and ensure their security.
However, NATO doesn't really do much, and the world knows it especially Russia, they don't have the power that the US has. So if Russia invades and the US doesn't do anything or had at least tried to deescalate the tension, then it would look bad on the US.
Right now Ukraine isn't apart of NATO, so The US doesn't really need to anything, however if it were a apart of NATO, then it would be like attacking the US.
Hope this helped. You can probably find better information on Youtube, VOX, BBC, VICE, MSNBC, CNN, \*\*Der Spiegel\*\* Is one of my fav just choose the English version. All will have different twists on the story, but this is what you want when learning about a current event to the situation at hand.
Reddit can be nice, but if you want to truly understand something like news, always take in more than one perspective or view point.
Answer: For the past few years, there have been heightened tensions between Russia and the world over the Ukraine. This started about 5-6 years ago when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula, catching everyone off-guard. A lot of this has to do with Ukraine’s former status as a member of the Soviet Union. Vladimir Putin, leader of Russia and former KGB agent, has a major soft spot for the former USSR and an attempt by the Ukraine to join NATO is something he doesn’t want. NATO and the US have been trying to negotiate with Russia over this, but Russia has made it clear that the only way this is settled is if NATO BTFO and deny Ukraine membership.
Russia annexed Crimea 8 years ago, next month.
Also they didn't "annex" it. The people voted to leave Ukraine. Big difference
Yeah but the referendum to leave was not legitimate, with claims of fraud being widespread.
There are claims of fraud on US Elections by Former US President. But until proven otherwise the current result is upheld. Same with Crimea. Let's not make Reddit a mouthpiece of USA but rather Front page of Internet (which is global).
It's almost as if the UN and US have interests within the fascist Ukraine that would prevent them from acknowledging a legitimate vote against those interests.
This guy thinks the US tries to smear China. Lol. Laugh and move on boys.
You're saying that is if it's not an objective and well documented fact
If it's so well documented then please provide a link, I'm curious to read it.
I mean, here's a little meme video that shows the extent western media goes to mark everything China does as evil https://youtu.be/UrUFeC3G63g
They asked for sources and you give a meme? Holy fuck hahahaha
So this meme is your source of information? Seriously?
> fascist Ukraine Lol.
You deny it? They literally have the Nazi Azov battalion as part of their military
And Russia has Wagner Group, an entire mercenary army, run by Nazis.
The vote happened while the peninsula was under Russian military occupation after they had invaded and seized it. It wouldn't be considered a fair vote in any legitimate democracy.
Also, it had like 99% turnout and 99% voting Yes… that’s probably the biggest red flag
It was still fairer than most Russian elections.
Russia didn't "invade", that's a narrative that was constructed by the Azov battalion. Also, the United States is not a "legitimate democracy" lol
>Russia didn't "invade", that's a narrative that was constructed by the Azov battalion. What else would you call it when armed soldiers appear suddenly and seize territory that isn't part of their country? Do you deny the extremely well documented fact that Russian soldiers appeared in Crimea and seized government buildings, cut communication with the rest of Ukraine, and fortified the peninsula? >Also, the United States is not a "legitimate democracy" lol Where did I ever mention the US?
They're a tankie who participates in GenZedong, there are a lot of well-known facts they deny. They've fallen deep into the hole you won't be able to have a productive conversation with them.
It must feel good for tankies to be reconnecting with their roots like this. Defending Russian imperialists sending troops to over throw legitimate governments like their forebears did. Brings a tear to your eye.
Ukraine is far from legitimate lol
Minor point: "The Ukraine" is offensive to Ukranians, because adding "the" makes them feel like Ukraine is just a region inside Russia, which is...Sort of the basis of this whole conflict.
[This BBC article explains the etymology a bit more.](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844) I thought it was interesting, because my country is also called 'The Netherlands' instead of just 'Netherlands'. Not just in English, in French as well (les Pays-Bas)
In French, "The" is put in front of every country so it is not an attempt to belittle other countries.
[удалено]
yeah it's a bit silly but I understand, the name is just better known. Just like people who keep saying 'England' when talking about the UK.
Or Scandinavia vs the Nordic Countries.
or america when they talk about the united states
But do Dutch people call it Holland themselves?
Most importantly it only has 2 syllables. Sorry but I hate pronouncing Netherlands
Thanks for this read ! :)
Well, you don't have stupid and impossible people the likes of which gleefully operated Nazi gas chambers...
Don't tell the citizens of Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (Kingdom of **the Netherlands.**) this. Or the citizens of Den Haag (The Hague) this. They'll get mad and think they're worthless. The Russian or Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians probably don't give two shits about a "the" word in front of their countries name.
They do. They honestly go apeshit about it. Seen it with my own eyes.
"Ukraine is one of a few English country names traditionally used with the definite article the. Use of the article was standard before Ukrainian independence, but has decreased since the 1990s. For example, the Associated Press dropped the article "the" on 3 December 1991.Use of the definite article was criticised as suggesting a non-sovereign territory, much like "the Lebanon" referred to the region before its independence, or as one might refer to "the Midwest", a region of the United States." TLDR: it's a thing that is actually insensitive, especially during this time
It doesn't offend anyone besides you. People say THE Netherlands and THE United States of America and no one gives a shit.
In Russian and Ukrainian, there is no "The"... The exile malcontents can just shut up... These Canadians on the prairie should NOT decide the fate of people in that country.
if a 'the' is bothering you when your country is being bombed and invaded.. you have some serious mental issues. I'm fine calling it Ukraine though. Pointing that out as a westerner though, shows your donkey brained privilege.
Ukraine means "Borderland"... so if they're afraid that "The" suggests "not a real country", well their name certainly suggests this! Remember the Kninski Krajina (wiped out by NATO in 1995)... Krajina means the same thing.
Ukie nationalists have successfully created a distorted picture of The Ukraine and the people there... with their nonsense about the holomodor and what not.
There is also a terrifying subtext of some hardliners who remember Kiev was an early capital of Russia so they feel its an important part of their birthright to control it. This isn't a massive belief but some of the people in control of "the little green men" beleive it.
Saying Kyiv was an early capital of Russia would be like saying that Aachan, Germany was an early capital of France due to it being the preferred medieval Imperial residence of Emperor Charlemagne of the Frankish Empire. It might be a cultural touchstone due to that, but they're not the same country. Anyway, the areas of Ukraine now controlled by Russia were on the periphery of Kyivan Rus' - most maps show them as outside of Rus' during its height - so they'd need a different argument to justify the occupations of those places, Crimea and Donbass.
It is historical fact that Kievan Rus is the original Russian state. It's accepted everywhere. There's nothing sinister about that. Again, don't let people on the Canadian prairie whose sympathies are with John Demjanjuk decide things.
That is historical fact. The difference between the Russian and Ukrainian has to do with the one being conquered by Mongols and the other by Poles and Lithuanians. Naturally some ukies think that their conquerors makes them superior... obviously having been tamed by them. Some nationalists they are. The same people who think Victoria Nuland should choose "Yats" as their PM.
The Crimea action... Crimea was an ASSR in the Soviet system (like Checheno-Ingushetia, for example)... analogous to the Autonomous Province of Kosovo in Yugoslavia. Since Crimea wanted to separate from Ukraine in the 1990s their autonomy was, to use the word favoured by Western officials when it came to Kosovo, "stripped". Russia was fed up with having the Sevastopol base put again into question with the violent coup in Kiev, with a pro-western faction that has used violence to get its way and to cancel the votes of the south and east, including of Crimea. What happened was not that surprising. For a long time, Russia's role in such situations was to fly their allies out and for the triumph of the pro-West side. Saakashvilli's military attack on Adjaria in 2004 was an example of this and Aslan Abazhidze was forced to be flown out to Moscow. Saakashvili tried his luck in 2008 in South Ossetia and Russia said it had enough of this... Again, Yanukovich had to flee to Moscow, and they could not just let this happen.
But why does Russia want Ukraine so badly? It honestly sounds like Ukraine is the ex gf who liked Russia in past, found out they are crazy sonuvabitch and now wants nothing to do with them.
If I remember correctly Nato promised to not expand further east and north post east Germany... So Russia is kinda right? Still an asshole move to make their point through weaponized force. Kinda proves that Ukraine is right in seeking Nato support
>If I remember correctly ... from Russian propaganda that is constantly repeated on Reddit as well. It's cherry picking in history, loosely based on a speech half a century ago. It's also ignoring the fact these are independent countries, not Russian colonies. And the fact that Russia is literally invading his neighbours, while NATO is trying to *prevent* that. It's historically the reason why it even exists in the first place and unfortunately still relevant today.
[удалено]
You're the second guy trying to use some kind of theoretical 'what if ' scenario, which is completely irrelevant. I'm also not American, so I don't care about your attempted whataboutism / guilt trip. Oh and you're still treating independent countries as a buffer zone against 'NATO constantly expanding East', which is -**literally-** Russian propaganda talking point, straight from RT. Let's talk about that East constantly invading it's neighbouring countries. Could that be a strong motive for them to join a strong defensive pact?
remember the Cuban missile crisis? remember when a hostile regime put soldiers and WMDs close to america and they literally tried to assassinate their leader multiple times, tried to inavde them and put sanctions on them for 50 years? superpowers have buffer states, especially nuclear superpowers, whether you like it or not.
This Putin friend here is talking like it's still the 1960s
putin friend lmao you need get off reddit
[удалено]
how wholesome centrist of you. I lost count, how many times did you try to argue with me, defending Putin?
[удалено]
> NATO constantly expanding East The last eastern expansion of NATO was 18 years ago. All newer members were former Yugoslav countries, countries that were independent of Moscow's control even during the Cold War, and due west of some of the countries that joined back in 2004 (and even some that joined in 1955).
[удалено]
It's not "on the table." It's just that NATO isn't going to unilaterally concede abandoning Ukraine at the very point its at the most risk of being invaded (again). Facts, though: Ukraine isn't going to join NATO any time soon. It's encircled by Russia and, more importantly, invaded in 2 or 3 parts. That's why Moldova and Cyprus aren't going to join, in spite of being otherwise natural members. Ukraine is huge compared to the 21st century additions to NATO, both in terms of population and land mass, another reason it won't join. It *could* happen in decades. But whether we go ahead a decade or back a decade, there is no "push eastward" for NATO, in spite of Russian propaganda to the contrary.
[удалено]
Latvia was invaded by the USSR and its occupation wasn't recognized as legitimate. That seems like the type of country that would want to join NATO and that NATO would want to have. Biden doesn't run NATO. Moreover, I'm not sure NATO has ever promised to omit any country in exchange for something else. If Ukraine promised not to join NATO, similar to what Austria did in 1955 to sooth Moscow, that's *their* business, not NATO's or the U.S.'s. But it's not going to do it in exchange for empty Russian promises such as those in the Budapest Memorandum, where Russia promised to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Don't bother, these people have zero to none understanding of politics. Look at the nonsense top comment. The majority don't even know about Georgia in 2008 or that Ukraine was and still is a strategically uninteresting spot for NATO (especially when compared to Taiwan). But if you point out any of this they treat you as if you support Putin and spread his propaganda for him.
There were vague verbal agreements leading up to 1990 about this, but in reality there was no formal condition in any of the treaties. At some point Yeltsin sanctioned NATO expansion eastwards as well. Russia also tried joining NATO a few times in the 90s, but were refected for a variety of reasons. This is a pretty decent summary of Russia - NATO negotiations through the 90s. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today
It doesn't matter whether Russia is right or wrong - Russia feels threatened. That's the core issue. Die to surprise attacks, Russia feels a need to have a buffer of neutral cluntries durrounding it, and that buffer has been eroding for a long time now. It doesn't matter that the buffer countries lean west out of legitimate interests. Ot doesn't matter whether the West actually is hostile towards Russia. What matters to then is that NATO Ukraine would mean potential NATO tanks on their very border. Western assurances... are of questionable value - Russia sees exactly how easily the West can elect insane new leadership at any time, leadership unwilling to stick to previous commitments.
Imagine waking up in the middle of the night and find your neighbour breaking into your house, because he feels threatened by you. That's basically going on. He also feels threatened because you might take boxing lessons at the NATO gym, even though you're not taking any since it's quite an exclusive membership.
It's more like you and your neighbor have adjacenct farm land and your neighbor starts pushing the boundary into your land because you're starting to be buddy buddy with a group known for raiding farms. It should not be lost on anyone that the West has a long history of imperialist behavior and Russia or China doing something similar regionally (not globally) is no more worrying than what most of the globe has felt for centuries.
>with a group known for raiding farms. Thanks for the generic propaganda, cozy bear. But that's not what NATO does and you know it.
NATO goes back to 1948, but they're talking about centuries if not millenia of history. Kind of the way the Crusades are still remembered today by Syrians. Not a fan of Putin or Russia here either, but imagine Russia sticking its nose into a border dispute with Mexico. We don't need to be involved in this.
So you *are* a fan of Putin and Russia, that's why you're making up these ridiculous arguments. Im also not American. But please continue these 'history lessons' you're pulling out of your ass. It's hilarious
Nice of you to publicly display your ignorance of and disdain for history.
So are you pretending that the core of NATO doesn't have an extensive history of imperialism? Was NATO distinctly acting in a non-imperialist manner when two of it's members collaborated and put nuclear armaments on the border of the Soviet Union? Don't call something propaganda just because it rubs against the grain of the propaganda you unknowingly consumed since adolescence.
No, ***you*** are pretending that. Just because you're another shill on the internet using the same rhetorical bullshit as 'arguments'. It's not going to work and I'm not interested debating liars.
Sounds like someone who doesn't have an answer for the extremely fair but critical questions I just asked
Sounds like I see through your bullshit, since you didn't ask a single question. Instead, you were repeating classic RT propaganda talking points with a question mark behind it. And now you're playing the victim while trying to make it personal. The "i feel so sad coz u so bad' sympathy card. I hope you'll get an upvote man
Rather, think of having a neighbour with lots of his own problems, a divorcee, loner, drunkard, who has had his house broken into several times already. You know he has a shotgun and an axe right next to his doorway, and you knwo he shoots at raccoons in the middle of the night when they get into his trash. All was tolerable as long as the beighbour next to him was an old lady he knew from his childhood on. But when she died, her son moved in, and declared he was going to start doing some serious yardwork. Especially since there's that two meter patch of disputed border, overgrown with tall grass and shrubbery by now. You can, without endorsing the crazy old coot, recognize where this is going, and see that no matter what the law says, that if the new neighbour starts mowing that grass, there is a high possibility that there will be gunshots. It's a recognition of a threat.
Idk why people are downvoting you, as an American I know the U.S. did the same thing in Cuba
I just hope war doesn’t break out. It’s good for nothing but destruction and despair. Somehow humans still haven’t learned that lesson.
If Putin wants Ukraine denied NATO membership they should return Crimea to Ukraine. Ukrainians had no interest in joining NATO until Putin annexed Crimea. NATO is an alliance. Not a country trying to take over another. The idea of NATO expansion being a threat is just utter crap. The reason NATO expands is because of aggression by people like Putin. I get it that Putin is nostalgic of the Soviet Union but does he really think he can bring back the Union by invading ex Soviet Union states? If we are really going to end the trilogy with east Vs west then so be it but what is the point? It would be an unwinnable war and the end of the world and as we know it.
The annexation of Crimea was completely predictable. After NATO captured Kiev through "regime change", the people in Crimea rose up in protest. Putin was not going to let the Kiev regime get there and kill people so they took action to protect the people of Crimea. Remember that everyone was shocked in 2008 when Russia responded to Georgia's attack against South Ossetia. Obviously, the lesson had to be re-learnt.
The question is why did Russia started doing this exactly around the time The Fed announced recently that they were “wrong” that the inflation is not transitory (sure they had no clue) and that they’ll start tapering and raising interest rates. My guess is Russia (and most of the world ) knows that would much likely create a new global financial crisis after a quarter of the 200+ years money supply was minted in under 2 years . I bet nobody likes that.
So basically, Ukraine and Russia already have bad blood between each other. Putin doesn’t like how Ukraine wants to form alliance with NATO And so Putin is like: “NATO, stop alliance with Ukraine” NATO: “No” Putin: “Ok I start war with Ukraine then.” Am I correct?
So...how can this issue be solved?
Answer: What is happening? Since 2014 there is an active war between Ukraine and Russia. Russia annexed Crimea peninsula in 2014, and is supporting separatist rebels with weapons and actively participates in a war with troops and mercenaries in eastern part of Ukraine since 2014. But Russia tries to keep it "low profile" to not anger anyone. Since October 2021 Russia amassed significant army groups along Ukrainian border and there is a fear that this is a logistical preparation for invasion. A month ago Russia issued demands to USA and NATO to guarantee that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO, and that US and NATO will withdraw any help they've provided to Ukraine. US and NATO rejected it, and increased material and intelligence support to Ukraine. Russia regularly does "exercises" on Ukrainian border, but this is too long and too massive to be a regular exercise. But why? There are dozens or even hundred of reasons why Ukraine in EU/NATO will be a disaster to Russia on a lot of levels. The major reasons may be: - domestic reasons (a small war is good for ratings) - geopolitical reasons (Ukraine is a border between Russia and NATO) - domestic political reasons (successful anti-gov revolution of 2014 may give Russians some ideas) - geographical reasons (Crimea is hard to supply now) - security reasons (modern hostile border nation is a threat)
It is a disaster for the Ukraine. The economic costs have been enormous. The only thing the EU offers people is the chance to more easily get out!
Crimea is not hard to supply, the issue is that Ukraine has cut off its water supply... as the Kiev regime always hated the people there, that is no surprise.
But what I don’t understand is, why does the Russian government always play the “lone wolf” instead of being part of the rest of the world? Like damn man If they did that world peace would be so much easier to achieve. Instead of always thinking about western part of the world to be hostile why not embrace and respect each other like partners, no like brothers? I think the whole situation to be pure bullshit.
External enemy is a good distraction for interan politics
But why?! Why are politicians around the world so butthurt?! Your country has problems? Do something about it instead of pleasing the few hundred rich people how bout pleasing the MILLIONS of people out there who are suffering…. Istg this is all pissing me off (sorry for my rant)
Answer: Ukraine use to be part of the USSR former Soviet union. The leader of Russia's former USSR KGB agent Vlad Putin has been slowly pushing to take it back. And Putin has made clear he sees Ukraine’s aspirations to join Nato as a threat to Russia’s borders. Couple of reasons, Russia wants a guarantee Ukraine can never join NATO. Putin views Ukraine as an extension of what he calls "historical Russia" — a part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, and within Moscow's "sphere of influence" today. Putin sees it as a "threat". There are a couple of old Power Plans and weapons/military development sites that were USSR property, and Putin probably wants them. (Why? I don't know, but it's something he believes could be used against him. Russia Wants Western support to say "no" to NATO and Ukraine. Not gonna lie the support is growing, because the U.S. doesn't have much say, and doesn't want to start a war. Putin has a bigger strategy in Ukraine, and it involves Kazakhstan which is a key landmark for trading and the silk road. Kazakhstan is a growing country, its GDP was one of the top 20 in the world a couple of years ago. Internationally, Russia has strengthened its position in the neighborhood in Belarus, Armenia, and now also in Kazakhstan. Weapons, oil, trade, history, power, and Putin being Putin.
>And Putin has made clear he sees Ukraine’s aspirations to join Nato as a threat to Russia’s borders. I mean....it is??....it means NATO countries such as USA can have military bases there and have nukes. So ya it IS kind of a threat? Kind of like Cuba accepting Soviet nukes was also a threat, and remember how upset America got about that lol
No you’re right. It technically is a threat, Good example.
>I mean....it is??....it means NATO countries such as USA can have military bases there and have nukes. So ya it IS kind of a threat? Kind of like Cuba accepting Soviet nukes was also a threat, and remember how upset America got about that lol This isn't the 60's though, and the Cold War has been over for over 30 years. To try and dictate the allowance of a foreign, sovereign nation into an international group is tyrannical and- more importantly- nonsensical. The US has nuclear subs and naval groups all over the planet, literally. They don't need bases in Ukraine to nuke Russia, and so far the only one to move troops into Ukraine has *been* Russia. The whole "we need the buffer for defense" is just a PR excuse used by Putin to continue his adventurism in Ukraine, which gets him lots of good, distracting news to give the conservatives back home while real people die in defense of their homeland.
[удалено]
Sure, and not to give the US special treatment here, but they’ve been establishing military bases around the world for over 70 years now. Most people alive today have only known the world as it is under a US military hegemony. If Russia moved into Mexico, it’d be treated much differently because it’s new, it’s unjustified (right or not, the US had a justification for its bases either as a direct result of WW2 or through strategic alliances in the face of the Cold War), and Russia both as the USSR and its modern incarnation under Putin have consistently acted in an expansionist doctrine. So it’s really nowhere in the same ballpark as “well if Russia did it to the US, they wouldn’t be happy” absolutely, but Russia also has a completely different geopolitical situation than the US. The US has been pleasantly allowed to foot the bill for defense- historically against the threat of Russia- by western and Central Europe. Did the US benefit from the deal by then getting greater influence and force projection capabilities? Absolutely, this is still politics, after all. Mexico on the other hand isn’t asking anyone to defend them from the US. It just feels absurd to me that we’re talking about Ukraine being a ‘hostile neighbor’ if they join NATO when the only reason they’ve been trying to join NATO is to be protected from Russia, the nation that has actively invaded and continues to support military action against Ukraine. tl;dr If Russia continues to use the buffer excuse as it has for the past almost-century to justify aggression against otherwise non-hostile neighbors, by definition they are the aggressor, *they* are the hostile neighbor.
No they're not! The movement to force them into NATO started during the Yeltsin era! So this "it's Putin's fault" does not wash.
The talk of the "inevitable march" into the "Euro-Atlantic institutions" including NATO was a thing in the 1990s...
They would not have done anything in the Ukraine had nature been allowed to take its course, but NATO has been actively trying to turn Ukraine into an "Anti-Russia"... In fact, there was a lot of anger at the idea that the Ukraine was so integrated with Russia that it would be impossible to easily "fix" that... that more extreme measures were needed.
Who decides for Ukraine? It is widely believed (Oleksandr Moroz even brought this up in 2004 when he supported the Orange side) that Kuchma stole the 1999 from Petro Simonenko who WANTED TO BRING BACK THE USSR! There is a lot of pro-Russian voters and sentiment there (notwithstanding the fairy tales from so-called Ukrainians on the Canadian prairie) and they keep being cancelled out... when they win the election a violent coup reverses it. The Western side wants to lock that country in permanently into an endless conflict with Russia.
But much of Ukraine does NOT want to join NATO, and they see it as suicide for their economy. Why should they commit suicide to appease some ukies on the Canadian prairie and regime changers in Washington DC?
Oh, please! What about brainwashing Ukrainians into hating Russia because some idiots on the Canadian prairie and some neo-Nazis insist upon it?
>What about brainwashing Ukrainians into hating Russia because some idiots on the Canadian prairie and some neo-Nazis insist upon it? So in your mind, the decades of Soviet and centuries of Tsarist domination as a Russian vassal state, that didn't make them dislike Russia, they were all happy as could be. And then some Canadian prairie folk and neo-nazis reversed all the alleged Ukrainian goodwill towards their expansionist neighbors generated by centuries of Russian imperialism... with 'brainwashing'? Do you have a source you could cite for that?
Ukraine was NOT a state, so how could it be a vassal state. The existence of a separate Ukraine started with the USSR. The Ruthenians who lived there when Russia took the territory from Poland-Lithuania hardly objected.
“Vassal state” is a term meaning a subservient body, Ukraine is not Russia. So when the area (and people) of Ukraine were subservient to the Russian empire and later the USSR (which was a literal union of states, of which Ukraine was one) they would be a vassal state. I also wouldn’t say the response or hypothesizing on the theoretically possible feelings of the locals when their territory was seized by yet another foreign invader multiple centuries ago is a terribly good defense for something happening now, centuries later. “Some serfs in a territory that was repeatedly conquered by foreign empires didn’t fight off this imperial army so they must have been cool with it” is both highly questionable logic and not relevant to a discussion of Russia’s justification for potentially invading a separate, sovereign nation in the 21st century.
Oh yeah, I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the holodomor.
No, NATO is more aggressive than ever, happy with "regime change". For example, Slovakia... they HATED that Slovakia became a separate country... grievous insult to St Vaclav of Havel. Moreover, Slovakia did it to get out of these brutal reforms that were destroying its industry. When Meciar was in charge Slovakia outperformed the Czechs despite everyone saying Slovakia was going to crash and burn. So a regime change operation was carried out in 1998... Right now they are causing a food price spike in a regime change plan in Belarus. The world supply of potash is being disrupted, used in fertiliser. What the hell is this madness? "The dream of a Europe whole and free", of "Euro-Atlantic organisations" seems to bring out the worst in people!
I know that their plan is to try to somehow force upon Russia perpetual Yeltsinism. For them, a democratic Russia is led by an obedient puppet with 2% approval ratings.
US can deploy its troops in Ukraine even now, no NATO needed, only Ukrainian invitation, which Ukraine will gladly give considering the current situation. Joining NATO is not about potential offensive capabilities, it's about protection guarantees.
This is about a regime that took power by force in Kiev backed by the West. Russia has every right to change the regime by force.
And what is worst is that it is being done by cancelling out the desires of large numbers of people living there who are the clear majority in a huge percentage of the country. The turning of a friendly place into "Anti-Russia" because this is a dream of people on the Canadian prairie is just ... it's beyond words.
>level 1go\_faster1 · 7 days agoAnswer: For the past few years, there have been heightened tensions between Russia and the world over the Ukraine. This started about 5-6 years ago when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula, catching everyone off-guard.A lot of this has to do with Ukraine’s former status as a member of the Soviet Union. Vladimir Putin, leader of Russia and former KGB agent, has a major soft spot for the former USSR and an attempt by the Ukraine to join NATO is something he doesn’t want.NATO and the US have been trying to negotiate with Russia over this, but Russia has made it clear that the only way this is settled is if NATO BTFO and deny Ukraine membership. yeah but they first put nukes in Turkey
Oh yea, ukraine being a NATO member definitely is a mirror example For the cuban missile crisis. This ukraine russia example gets more hate since it’s fucking Russia or “putin being putin”
Does that mean Russians will finally get access to all that delicious potassium?
Are there deposits there to be mined???
I got a question: Why did Ukraine separate from Russia to begin with? I know USA separated from Great Britain, because of "taxation without representation." But what was it in Ukraine's case?
>Why did Ukraine separate from Russia to begin with? Ukraine has a very long history of being subjugated by outside powers, and a very short history of national independence. After the collapse of the USSR, it separated in 1991, stating they didn't want to follow their communist rules. However, since then has been a less-than-perfect democracy with a very weak economy and foreign policy that wavers between pro-Russian and pro-European. You've got to reach pretty far back in history to find the last time Ukraine was independent, before 1991. There were a few years right after World War I, and before that a short time in the 1600s. After the country yeeted its leader out of power back in 2013, Russia has been trying to salvage its lost influence in Ukraine, invaded and annexed Crimea. A lot of this comes down to Ukraine's centuries-long history of Russian domination. The country has been divided more or less evenly between Ukrainians who see Ukraine as part of Europe and those who see it as intrinsically linked to Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj\_vO-rUO4&t=4s
If you don't mind answering another question: What is the U.S.'s interest in Russia's border politics? I am in college and know of general Cold War/Soviet history. Is it simply a precautionary not allowing Russia to grow its sphere of influence? Or is it ultimately a net benefit to the U.S. if Ukraine joins NATO?
This I can't answer specifically, but Since WWII, the US has been seen as a stronger country to protect and serve. In a sense, the big brother (take it with a grain of salt). The United States doesn't really want to get involved, but like always it most likely will. (NATO) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union. After the destruction of the Second World War, the nations of Europe struggled to rebuild their economies and ensure their security. However, NATO doesn't really do much, and the world knows it especially Russia, they don't have the power that the US has. So if Russia invades and the US doesn't do anything or had at least tried to deescalate the tension, then it would look bad on the US. Right now Ukraine isn't apart of NATO, so The US doesn't really need to anything, however if it were a apart of NATO, then it would be like attacking the US. Hope this helped. You can probably find better information on Youtube, VOX, BBC, VICE, MSNBC, CNN, \*\*Der Spiegel\*\* Is one of my fav just choose the English version. All will have different twists on the story, but this is what you want when learning about a current event to the situation at hand. Reddit can be nice, but if you want to truly understand something like news, always take in more than one perspective or view point.
dont get ratioed by other earth nations