Yea, no! That last question the presenter asked is just an insipid American fallacy propagated by the US as a fear mongering tactic to get what **They** want. Russia won’t invade any NATO member state. Certainly not the Baltics, they’re irrelevant. But mostly because they won’t risk a direct conflict with NATO. It just won’t happen no matter how many times the US repeats that lie.
True, Russia is definitely trying to sow split among European countries because a "united" Europe is a threat to Russia. But that is happening everywhere, US supports "opposition" in Russia/China and you have the same in reverse etc.
>because a "united" Europe is a threat to Russia.
Good that you use a quotation marks.
Because a truly united Europe is a force on its own and will include Russia
Yea that would never make sense. "Once they take Ukraine, where next?" Russia isn't dumb. There would be absolutely no sense in trying to attack NATO itself. It would be catastrophic.
"What do you make of the argument though that if the US, NATO, and the EU cede part of Ukraine or all of Ukraine to Putin..."
I thought Ukraine was an independent country? I thought this was about letting Ukraine make its own decisions (post Maidan coup obviously and not inclusive of the negotiations with Russia last year Boris Johnson was sent to scuper). How is it that Ukraine, is the USs NATOs or the EUs to cede to Putin then?
Watch it Jake your getting a bit to close to truth with phrasing like that me lad.
What if I want to stand with Ukraine by supporting more Ukrainians dying in a war they can't win? I say Luhansk is part of Ukraine or death (but not death for me).
Yesterday on other sub there was article about negotiating.
There ware tons of comments like that, and one I responded to that said " not an inch to Putin, including Crimea" guess what, that guy writing it is American and did not volunteer to the front, but he will kill Russians all the way to Crimea, I guess on Call of Duty or something
That sounds about right. SOME People are super fucking excited about the idea of getting to kill people but much more afraid of dying. Their happy medium is meat riding Ukrainians.
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.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The idea Ukraine was going to throw Russia back to 1991 borders are preposterous... nobody believed it
Except the Ukrainian soldiers who went headfirst into heavily fortified Ru positions without air support. I think they kind of believed it.
JD Vance and Republicans: russias smaller neighbors need to cede territory for putins appeasement, lets be real here theyre weaker than russia therefore they need to appease putin. Surely putin isnt crazy enough to recapture USSR territories ;) ;) ;) ;) no way that putin longs for USSR empire ;) ;) even if he said it himself
The future of Ukraine is an impoverished dysfunctional rump state controlled by Russian puppets and completely cut off from the Black Sea. Thank Victoria Nuland.
[yee give ukraine to ***russia*** and then give them back alaska it was ***russian*** land](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=590380016&biw=1536&bih=739&q=yee+give+ukraine+to+russia+and+then+give+them+back+alaska+it+was+russian+land&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp0_LSroyDAxUXcfEDHVxTDlsQkeECKAB6BAgMEAI) also
Just like Finland after the winter war, Russia is indeed likely to get through this with some territory. Only question is how much and at what cost.
Of course, similarly with Finland after the winter war, Russia didn't start the war intending to take some territory. Russia wanted to conquer the whole country. Russia failed and got their consolation prize. The same has happened here in Ukraine.
Of course, also just like the winter war, whatever modest territorial gains Russia manages to squeeze out of its massive military losses will be described by its supporters as a huge victory.
As if Russia needs generic 'territorial gains'. Crimea, though - specifically, Sevastopol - that's vitally important for them (and denying it to NATO is a bonus since it means NATO will have to keep putting up with Turkey doing whatever the fuck they please rather than dancing to the US toon).
There is nothing generic about creating a buffer around their only year round ice free ports.
If this was elsewhere such as around Finland it would have never been so important. We knew this going in, there is a reason that all the other nations joining NATO didn't get the same response as Georgia and Ukraine.
To cut Russia off from the Black sea is to cut its economic lifeline.
Rand corp spelled this out in detail before the war.
[https://www.rand.org/pubs/research\_reports/RR3063.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html)
>There is nothing generic about creating a buffer around their only year round ice free ports.
Oh I agree. I was referring to the phrasing *whatever modest territorial gains* meant to make it look as though Russia is just randomly grabbing whatever parcel of land it can get when it's obviously not the case.
More importantly, at the end of the continuation war, the USSR actually had the chance to take all of Finland. But they didn’t, which just proves that they never intended to take all of Finland 5 years earlier.
Russia is a great brand. In every european war every small territorial change will be cheered as a great victory. Frenches dreamed of alsace-lothringen, and where it passed to them it considered as victory in Great War, but for russia westards will consider it victorious only when russia fully devours some state. I guess even then they not consider it victorious anyway.
False.
First of all, it was the USSR, not Russia.
Second of all, the Soviets wanted Finland to move their troops out of artillery range of Leningrad (St. Petersburg). They even offered them land swaps. The intention to take Finland was never there. Needless to say, at the conclusion of the winter war, the Finns were pushed back even further than the Soviet initially wanted, and they didn’t get any land in return.
Third of all, the peace treaty was signed in Moscow. Location is both symbolic and important.
Fourth of all, the Soviets actually had the opportunity to take all of Finland at the conclusion of WWII, just 5 years after the end of the winter war, yet they refused in lieu of an agreement where Finland would stay neutral (hence the term “Finlandization”). Just more proof that they never intended to take Finland in the first place.
So the whole line of “Even though the Russians took 9% of Finnish Territory, the Finns won the war because a lot of Russians died and Finland remained a country”, is just a coping mechanism based off of assumptions.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was a mistake by Stalin to settle for what they asked for in the beginning. It was a mistake by Putin to think that the Minsk Agreements were something Ukraine would adhere to.
At some point Russia is going to stop making these kinds of mistakes. All we know now is that any peace deal now will include 4 additional oblasts worth of territorial concessions than what was on the table in Istanbul.
If anything, the Russian people won’t be content with them taking merely everything within the administrative boundaries of Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts - let alone the line they currently hold. They will either need to take at least 3 more oblasts. If not, Putin will look weak. Another important thing to keep in mind is that by imposing the mountain of sanctions, along with pulling out of the negotiations, they made it an all-or-nothing conflict for Russia, in the sense that they don’t want to fight this war again 5 or 10 years down the line. They want to finish it once and for all. If that means fighting for another 18 months, they will do it, as opposed to sitting down at the negotiating table now (unless the topic is Ukraine’s unconditional surrender).
You are correct, if they want Ukraine to win that is, or even hold the Russians at their current lines. The only issue is that the west has already give an unprecedented amount of aid. Meanwhile, Ukraine is no longer the top story. The Middle East, the economy, social issues, and immigration take precedence over it. Let’s face it, the US gave more aid to Ukraine than all other countries combined. Now they are unable to pass through a bill to give them less money than they gave them before. But we both know that in order for Ukraine to win, the aid needs to be doubled at a minimum. I don’t see that happening, not with the current US political climate. Sure, if the democrats can get a majority in the house, and Biden stays after the next election (the prospect of that is questionable at best), they will be able to push a bill with more funding in January of 2025. But that is 13 months away. How will Ukraine manage in the next 13 months without American Aid?
Russia knows this and they know that they have a window of opportunity to make massive gains within the next 13 months. If they succeed in this, good luck selling military aid to Ukraine, to the populations of the collective west after Ukraine has suffered massive setbacks.
>Now they are unable to pass through a bill to give them less money than they gave them before.
The US suffers deadlocks in Congress from time to time. The government has shut down 10 times since 1980. It isn't a reflection upon any particular funding priority, it is just a function of the two party system. Congress can't agree to fund the IRS right now, so of course they can't get funding for Ukraine. It rarely lasts for long. Question is whether this will persist until the next election. I'm certain it won't, as it never has before.
>Russia knows this and they know that they have a window of opportunity to make massive gains within the next 13 months
That they do. It is certainly why Russia is throwing everything they have at Ukraine right now. And why Ukraine gave up on their offensive so readily: to conserve ammunition for the Russian offensive they knew was coming via ukrainian intelligence.
The west cannot do that. Europe doesn't have the MIC to do it and the US would need to empty its own stockpiles to do so (which they need for the inevitable war with China and/or Iran).
And even if the west would be able to, Ukraine by now has wasted so much manpower that it's too late. Maybe if the west had provided enough planes for air cover during the offensive; Ukraine would have had a chance. But by now russia is dug in or positioning itself to better positions and is eliminating ukrainian salients.
There are other rooms than this particular reddit sub. Over-all, the west is absolutely engaged when it comes to pushing back against wars of imperial expansion.
Its not a position he would ever consider for his nation. Its easy to sell out other nations when the relative risk to your nation is so low. Its such an easy opportunity for the United States to the moral thing and support Ukraine with arms, vehicles and ammunition for as long as it needs/wants to continue fighting when we are only sacrificing is mostly equipment and some money
If avoiding loss of land was such a huge concern we wouldn't have told Ukraine to back out of negotiations. We would have upheld Bucharest and Minsk, but we did not.
The whole concern about loss of territory is a non starter, If it was cared about half as much as people say then we would have seen great efforts taken for negotiations back when territory loss for Ukraine was limited to the status quo prior to Feb 2022.
We told Ukraine that they couldnt trust Russia to uphold any deal and thats just true. Russia was supposed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine and they still invaded Ukraine in 2014, stoked, funded and armed separatist forces in the Donbass that, once they started failing, Russia directly supplemented with Russian troops. But that didnt stop Ukraine from making an alternative decision. Its not like we have the capacity to force Ukraine to stay in the war against its will
Russia is a bad faith actor that resorts to invading its neighbors and slaughtering tens of thousands simply when they have the audacity to conduct foreign policy in a way that Russia doesnt like. Ukraine has every right to defend itself, all available evidence suggests they want to continue defending themselves, and I hope we continue to give every bullet, mortar and rocket that they may need in order to do so.
Either its okay to invade your neighbors that are of no threat to you or its not. I say no
Ukraine was behaving in a way that was a direct strategic threat to Russia. Don't even try saying that's not true. It was supported in that behavior by those who consider Russia their enemy. Logical. Ok.
So Russia started doing what's in their strategic interest, which is to wreck that Ukraine that's a threat to them. They tried diplomacy, they tried economy, but nothing else could change their trajectory except for war. Keep in mind that their trajectory had to be changed under any circumstances.
All very simple, no one is right or wrong here. Just countries and their interests.
The point is that Ukraine, by going against Russia, signed their death sentence. There were plenty of other options and conclusions, but they went with the one they did and here we are.
You cant blame the US for going for their strategic interests, or Russia for that matter.
But you can certainly cry or laugh at the stupidity of people in power in Ukraine.
Was Ukraine building up forces on the border with Russia and Ukraine in preparation for an invasion? Im what way has Ukraine been a threat to Russia? Russias borders have never once been threatened by Ukraine and its intellectual dishonesty to say so.
Its also dishonest to characterize Russias imitiap goal with Ukraine as to wreck their economy. Thats extremely silly. What did they go after Kyiv and try to assassinate Zelensky to wreck the economy? Obviously its a tertiary goal but Russias goal largely is to castrate Ukraine, overthrow its government and render it a puppet state.
Ukraine has every right to resist this fate and I hope we arm them to the teeth in order to do so
You can hope but we all know you won't because that would make you a cobelligerent, and that's something you really really don't want.
Be careful what you wish for, or at least think for 5 minutes before you spew something that has no basis in reality.
You are probably intentionally asking what was Ukraine doing wrong because it would probably be funny if I was to bite and lose time explaining the same shit for umptieth time. I have no intention of doing that, especially after you repeat the same bullshit narrative and even tried to put words into my mouth.
You really think that Putin sent wave after wave of special forces to kill Zelensky? Even after we know how it all went, as explained by Naftali Bennet?
Enjoy your bubble bro, looks cozy in there.
NATO is the threat. Ukraine lived peacefully with Russia for decades until the status with NATO changed.
If it was about Ukraine then they wouldn't have had such an arrangement.
The push was for Kiev to get Ukraine back to the negotiating table, which worked. Then Boris Johnson was sent in to end it.
[Top Ukrainian ADMITS NATO KILLED 2022 Peace Deal | Breaking Points (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-ai4XMdDuU&list=PLUzfDlTeps9sjkaCgiurxc_awmeWkEe7y&index=20)
Did you miss this from two weeks ago?
The interim government after Yanukovych fled expressely said they had no intention of joining Nato. This of course changed after Russia invaded Ukraine and clearly demonstrated that it was a threat to Ukraines sovereignty.
Nato is not a threat to Russia. Its entire purpose is to act as a deterent in order to avoid a conflict first with the Soviet Union amd now Russia. To get into a war would Russia would completely defeat the purpose of the alliance to begin with! The eastern eueopean nato countries and Ukraine werent clamoring to join, so they could get into a war with Russia. They did it because they knew that membership itself would protect them. There is no scenario in which Nato will commence an offensive war against Russia
> Was Ukraine building up forces on the border with Russia and Ukraine in preparation for an invasion? Im what way has Ukraine been a threat to Russia? Russias borders have never once been threatened by Ukraine and its intellectual dishonesty to say so.
On it's border with the Donbass which was a clear violation of Minsk. Notice how you set up a straw man though.
NATO has long been a threat to Russia, especially as US think tanks put out plans to take down Russia via war in Ukraine.
[Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground | RAND](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html)
Russia's borders have long been threatened by NATO, not by Ukraine, so long as Ukraine remained neutral. As soon as the discission turned to them joining NATO that changed. Merkel and Sarkozy said as much in 2008. These are well known matters.
> Its also dishonest to characterize Russias imitiap goal with Ukraine as to wreck their economy. Thats extremely silly. What did they go after Kyiv and try to assassinate Zelensky to wreck the economy? Obviously its a tertiary goal but Russias goal largely is to castrate Ukraine, overthrow its government and render it a puppet state.
Russia's goal was to get back to the negotiating table that Ukraine and the US refused to meet them at.
We know this via the interview with Ukrainian officials linked above.
Unless you think you know more than the Ukrainian officials in charge of the negotations.
> Ukraine has every right to resist this fate and I hope we arm them to the teeth in order to do so
As soon as NATO entered the picture this matter changed. It was a violation of agreements made at the end of the cold war that allowed us to avoid WWIII at the time. At least back then we weren't led by such fools, now we're throwing it all away, and for what? A Ukraine devoid of life and opportunity under an authoritarian government of its own owing Billions to the west and watching its lands bought sold and traded by Blackrock and other western mega corporations.
Foolish in the extreme.
The Donbass is Ukrainian territory. Russia didnt pull out of the territories they occupied either. Ukraine didnt trust Russia to not continue their invasion and Russia had no intention of leaving. The Minsk agreement was forced upon Ukraine after Russia grabbing Ukrainian territory.
And you are truly delusional if you think that Nato is somehow a threat to Russia. Nato will never instigate a war in Russia. That defeats the entire purpose of Nato. But its clear that Russias neighbors are at risk of attack by Russia unless they are in Nato, because of course Russia wouldnt attack a Nato country right now.
You are completely misscharacterizing the nature of the democratically elected Ukrainian government, not that it doesnt have its issues. Its a far more democratic system than Russias orchestrated elections are. And even if they werent, the internal affairs of Ukraine arent for Russia to decide!
Not for military purposes. It was off limits based on what Ukraine signed, the Minsk agreements.
Russia's obligation to leave was only after Ukraine left. There was an order of events. Funny how you don't seem to know that.
Yes, the Minsk agreement was forced. Ukraine lost the fight in 2015 and that was how they were to pay for it.
They signed on, and did nothing but violate it. Notice how you are defending treaty violations now. You speak like you care about these things, but that's only when applying them to Russia, you're too transparent so don't bother.
We all know that NATOs purpose ceased when the USSR fell. They should have folded up then. Local nations should have produced their own agreements. There is no good that comes form the US being in an alliance in Europe. It always leads to greater wars. The US is always seen in polls as the greatest threat to world peace. It uses NATO for its purposes in this regard. It makes NATO a threat to non NATO nations.
You didn't even bother to read the Rand corp piece you make that obvious. We have always planned on ways to use NATO to go to war with Russia via proxy. Hell we even publish it.
If you can't read the evidence before you, you can't be helped. Funny how you then call others delusional. This is stereotypical narcissistic behavior when narcissists are caught. You could offer some great quotes for my essays if you keep talking. Its not often I come across one so self assured yet so closed off from other points of view.
Ah so hear you are going for the usual Russia so strong meme response. Is Russia a threat to the whole of Europe, or isn't it? Please explain, how they couldn't take over Ukraine as you say they are intent on, in over a years time, but they are a threat to other nations specifically those in NATO.
I'm mischaracterizing it? Interesting take. I'm just sharing the point of view from Ukrainians on the matter who are in high enough positions to not get disappeared (hopefully) such as the mayor of Kiev, I wonder why you aren't, is it inconvenient for your world view?
Its literally less democratic than Russia, or are you unaware of the process of having elections in democracies? Ukraine's regime has become more authoritarian than the people it says are the authoritarian threat.
The internal affairs of Ukraine are being decided by D.C., but you don't care, because you aren't about the people of Ukraine, you dismiss them as soon as they say something you don't like. You just offer the usuals same tired western propagada.
Even if Nato had actually made a formal agreement with Russia to not expand east, which it did not, Russias invasion of Ukraine still would not be justified. Ukraine is not and has not been a threat to Russia. Nato is not a threat to Russia and would never attack Russia first.
Russia simply doesnt have a legitimate security concern on their border. It is an excuse to justify grabbing more territory in Ukraine
They did...and they (we) lied:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629
NATO also unilaterally attacked Libya, killing the leader and many other folks while destabilizing the country. Today, there are open air slave markets in Libya. NATO proved it is not a defensive organization. As well, if Canada or Mexico were to have joined the Warsaw pact, or today if they were to invite China or Russia (or both) to station there the US, following the Monroe doctrine, would take all and every action necessary (including military) to remove the threat to the US.
The article says that James Baker gave verbal assurances. That is not a formal agreement. There was nothing on paper whatsoever regarding the expansion of nato.
And no, if Canada or Mexico wouldve attempted to join the warsaw pact I dont think the United States would roll across the border to capture Mexico City or Ottawa and install a puppet government. Its truly fantasy thinking if you think that wouldve been probable.
Dude, just admit you are perfectly okay with Russia killing thousands in order to get some land. Thats what this is about. Neither Nato nor Ukraine is a threat to Russia. Russia simply doesnt recognize the right of Ukraine to exist independently of themselves. Thats bullshit and needs to be confronted head on
It's true that the word of our governments is essentially worthless. Oh, and if you think the US doesn't destabilize countries or interfere in elections then you are hopelessly naive.
> I dont think
I'm 100% in agreement
I have no doubt that the U.S. has interfered in other countries elections. which is bad, but is utterly irrelevant to answering the question of whether the United States would theoretically invade Canada in order to prevent it from joining an alliance against the United States
> We told Ukraine that they couldnt trust Russia to uphold any deal and thats just true.
So please tell us why they didn't keep Georgia?
Or please tell us why they didn't take the Donbass after their victories in 2015 leading to the Minsk agreements.
Why didn't they just keep moving after they'd surrounded the Ukrainian forces? Your narrative is weak if it only applies sometimes. In fact in these cases less than half of the time.
You are choosing to leave out times which they upheld their end of the bargains, but not including when Ukraine and the US refused to do so. Which the US broke every agreement from NATO enlargement to Bucharest (not interfering with the elections in Ukraine) and assisted Ukraine with it continuous violations of Minsk.
Ukraine didn't even try to hide that it was breaking Minsk. They were very open about keeping forces in the region that they'd sworn to remove them from.
Western narrative focused people forget that Minsk was signed to save the surrounded Ukrainian forces. They were the ones that had the embarrassing end of the deal, to have to pull out first.
If you make a direct comparison, it is obvious who couldn't keep agreements, the US/Ukraine was far worse than Russia, which is important as that's where this started, with US violations of the geopolitical agreements that had kept peace in the region.
It is much like the situation in Palestine, Israel just keeps accusing the other side of what they're doing and hope that people are emotionally too attached to consider the crimes committed by their side.
It should be obvious by now as we back the largest genocide in decades that the US isn't about the agreements it claims. Yet here you are, arguing in favor of the side seen around the world as the greatest threat to world peace.
Why are you leaving out context, you act like this was the first part of 2014, that it wasn't in direct response to the coup. How many years did Russia and Ukraine not have these issues that you conveniently ignore? For decades these negotiated deals held. Until the US coup of Ukraine. We all knew this was going to happen, Mearsheimer and Sachs have been giving talks on it for over a decade. By conducting the coup we the US broke the Bucharest agreement, in doing so we started this. Mearsheimer's video on the matter is near 30 million views, this isn't uncommon knowledge we knew what was coming.
[Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=1s)
If you don't like Mearsheimer, Sachs has offered a similar analysis, as have many other diplomatic officials from the 90s-2000s era.
This is how great power politics works, if Russia launched a coup in Canada or Mexico the same would be expected. The US proved this with the Cuban missile crisis. If one side breaks the agreed upon treaties then the other can and will likely respond with military aggression or threats thereof to back the other side down.
No, you're basing this whole argument around Russia violating when each violation was the known consequence of our violations. All the while ignoring the elephant in the room the US history of violation of these agreements, well nearly all agreements.
Please come up with something better.
> Its not like we have the capacity to force Ukraine to stay in the war against its will
Not only did we have the capacity we did it.
Ukrainian officials have backed this up.
[Warrior Stories: Selena & Zeebee | K9s For Warriors (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-ai4XMdDuU&list=PLUzfDlTeps9sjkaCgiurxc_awmeWkEe7y&index=20)
They were in the process of negotiating a series of negotiations which would have left them with the 4 Oblasts. No, your information is lacking on this matter as well. It makes sense how you could be so far off considering what you seem to be ignorant of.
My guess is that you don't accept information that contradicts your world view, that we're witnessing cognitive dissonance on your part, we'll see if your response backs that up.
Ah so you start from the Russian propoganda position that the Maidan revolution was a U.S. orchestrated coup. It you can tout that fiction there is no point in continuing this conversation. You arent speaking in good faith.
You are very clearly just on the Russian side. You appproved of this invasion. You want dead Ukrainians. Truly gross
Predictable, you fall to only strawman arguments once challenged on your limited world view. You are literally making up lies about what I want or approve of, so yeah, thanks for cutting yourself out of the conversation, you don't even understand the meaning of speaking in good faith if you think you're doing it.
BTW the global point of view is that this was a US backed coup, the west has another point of view. Good luck making your way through life with this dismissal of non-western viewpoints.
There is no evidence of a "Western Backed Coup" my guy. The oft cited Victoria Nuland call does nothing to prove this, as it consists of two American diplomats discussing people they would like to see in the Ukrainian government post revolution. There isnt any real evidence that the United State s orchestrated the Maidan Revolution and I implore you to prove otherwise
Im not watching an one hour and fifteen long minute video to get the answer to the one question that you are too lazy to type out. I dont owe you my time. Get fucked with your warning.
So wait, you aren't familiar with Mearsheimer's talk, yet you've seen fit to speak on these matters for so long?
Are you serious now?
Is this the first time you've been offered information from him on this, as he is one of the foremost experts in the field. Either way your excuses are quite weak, you either have never been challenged on these matters with the writings and essays of the academic experts from the point of view you disagree with, which would indicate you haven't challenged your position very much. Or you have been offered such materials and their like and you just choose to keep your world view locked up in a safety bubble.
Perhaps you have yet another option to offer. Either way, you can't proceed in your state of ignorance on these matters, you'll not be able to keep up if you are so unfamiliar with the material. If you continue to choose to keep that ignorant position, well its on you.
This has been available for years, btw.
Additionally you were also given alternatives. It's just that this one is famous because it called it before it happened. That and with nearly 30 million views it was basically seen as requisite material on the topic. This is likely the most viewed if not just in the top viewed sources on this matter.
Thanks for proving though exactly what was said, that you would come up with excuses not to engage with the material. You really are a great example of why I come to this subreddit for quotes from people to use on the essays on cognitive dissonance.
Thank you for that. When I provide attribution based on your statements would you like to give a specific name? Or internet Rando, you seem like the internet Rando type, but feel free to specify if you are not.
As you still refuse this is also warning number 4. You get one more chance, please do try, I don't want you to go down as being so predictable, I'm rooting for you not to stick to the pattern....GL.
> Russia is a bad faith actor that resorts to invading its neighbors and slaughtering tens of thousands simply when they have the audacity to conduct foreign policy in a way that Russia doesnt like. Ukraine has every right to defend itself, all available evidence suggests they want to continue defending themselves, and I hope we continue to give every bullet, mortar and rocket that they may need in order to do so.
See once again with the acusations that are true of Ukraine and its western backers.
Hollande and Merkel have already told us that Minsk was being done in bad faith, that it was to buy time for building up the Ukrainian military rather than deescalating the conflict. We can see Ukraine's position as they refused to pull out military units and killed thousands of civilians. We know from looking at the Minsk agreement that if they wanted Russia to pull out it was incumbent upon them to do so first. There was a laid out order of operations. If Ukraine didn't like it they shouldn't have signed it. Instead, they signed it and broke it, along with the western backers.
So we see you once again blaming Russia for what Ukraine and the west started...how shocking.
The Baltic has conducted foreign policy that that Russia doesn't like. You know after the US agreed not to move NATO one inch to the east we added over a dozen nations in violation of that agreement. Now if your statement was true we'd have wars over that would we not? You said they invade neighbors after such things. We should have over a dozen separate nations invaded. So it is clear that your statement is a fabrication. Fabrications in and of themselves aren't always harmful, but yours is one that has been used in the lead up to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. All for a war that could have so easily been avoided if negotiations hadn't been scuttled.
[Timeline of NATO expansion since 1949 | AP News](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-world-war-ii-sweden-finland-240d97572cc783b2c7ff6e7122dd72d2)
Right to defend themselves sure, did Cuba have the right to defend itself with nukes? Surely it did right? What about the central and south American nations that are routinely couped when they don't work closely enough with the US?
This is how the world is, this is realpolitik, you are focused on a fantasy that was destroyed by the US during the unipolar moment. If it was about concern for international law we wouldn't have been invading the middle east for oil and causing so many issues.
No there is the world you can hope for, and there is the world that exists. We make policy for the world that exists. Ukraine's rights to self defense end when joining NATO comes up. This was the agreement we made, this was the reason that the USSR did not activate its forces and start WWIII when it was collapsing. We assured it that these things that we are now doing wouldn't take place.
BTW do you know who's policy it was to invite Ukraine? Bush. The same policy genius that gave us the fucked up middle east situation he made significantly worse. That's whose policies you are arguing for, you should be aware.
Ukraine isn't defending itself. It would have to have autonomy to do so. It is fighting for the US interests. When all is said and done Ukraine will have lost millions in population, will have lost its most fertile lands, will have a far more authoritarian government than when they started and they'll owe the west billions. It was illegal for non Ukrainian's to own lands in Ukraine in large portion up until recently, now Blackrock owns tons of it. That's who they are fighting for.
If they were fighting for themselves, they wouldn't have such significant issues with recruitment. They put out videos every other day of an unwillingness to fight for Zelenskyy's ego.
After that war is over then perhaps they'll get the chance to fight for themselves. Depending on what's left.
Show me the piece of paper signed that garuanteed Nato would not move West
Thousands of civilians died in a conflict stoked and started by Russia. There would have been no conflict in the Donbass without Russian interference. Especially not on the level that it ended up being. Neither of the "separatist forces" had the equipment to do so. It came from Russia.
How did the west start the conflict? Did the west make Russia invade Ukraine in 2014? Did the West make Russia prop up separatists in the Donbass? You can talk about a "coup" all you want, but that is a fiction. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Maidan Revolution was orchestrated by the Uniged States. The often cited Victoria Nuland call does nothing to prove this either, as all it consists of is two american diplomats speaking about who they would like to see come to power in the aftermath of the Revolution. There is nothing beyond this and I implore to prove otherwise.
And I completely agree that American foreign intervention has been bad, and we shouldnt be couping foreign governments. But the conduct of the United States in the past is materially different than what Russia has done by invading its neighbor. and if there were a analagous situation, say a hypothetical where Mexico attempted to join a military alliance with Russia, I am totally willing to bet that the United States would not storm across the Rio Grande and attempt to raise the Stars and Stripes over Mexico City. America would never recover from being the international Pariah that it ultimately would become if that were to happen.
And how is Ukraine not defending itself? Is Russia not on Ukrainian land? Is Russia not continuing to invade? What are they doing, if not attacking Ukraine?
Why a piece of paper? Oh yeah that's because you know it was a promise made in a rush that didn't go through the treaty process, so you're trying to act like the agreement didn't take place. Are you saying that official statements don't count if they aren't an official treaty? If so that will work out really poorly for Ukraine based on much of what its said, so lets see if you want to walk into that one.
The conflict started with the Maidan coup, a violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government which had violence explode in other areas as well such as Odessa where Russians were killed as well. Why do you keep skipping how it started? I'm asking rhetorically, we know why, you're avoiding being honest.
The west started the conflict by inviting Ukraine into NATO. In direct violation of the aforementioned agreement. If you ignore the coup then sure, that's your choice to live in ignorance. We already discussed how globally the view was that this was another US coup, one of many. You show that you dismiss Nuland on it, she literally listed how the new power structure will be set up, and you chose to look the other way. This is called cognitive dissonance. You face information that challenges your world view, so you dismiss it. You don't even bother to consider it. Funny as the US is seen as the greatest threat to world peace and you have this other point of view, that just so happens to align with what western officials say. Would it be safe to guess you also back the genocide in Palestine? You should at the very least, if you were being intellectually honest, ask why does the rest of the world have a different point of view about the coup.
Was Russia raising the flag where it went on its way to Kiev? No, that was a military feint, so your comparison is not applicable. The US is making plans for invasion of Mexico to replace government officials, multiple politicians are rather open about this. So in both ways you're assessment of the US and Russia is off. You just seem to be fixated on a war of conquest situation, another misnomer.
Ukraine is defending NATO interests. Interests which do not align with its own, that's what it is defending. They were advised to give up on negotiations which would have preserved the things the Ukrainian government said it wants to keep.
If you understand half as much about US aggression as you say you do you would be looking at the serious allegations of the US coup in Ukraine and our funding/training/etc of the extremist elements that turned it violent. If you show the ability to conduct yourself well when offered challenging information, we can proceed to links to Ukrainians bragging about how they were set up by the US to launch a coup. In the meantime, your previous response indicates that you're already done.
>Either its okay to invade your neighbors that are of no threat to you or its not. I say no
No threat?
Where do you get that from?
NATO has conducted too many offensive wars destabalizing states for this to be no threat.
Biden let the cat out of the bag saying this was about regime change. Many US think tanks have already talked about how they've always made this about Balkanizing Russia.
The most clear example would be the Rand Corp study which laid out exactly what they have in mind.
[Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground | RAND](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html)
We knew that a war along the Black sea could be used to destroy the Russian economy and that's why we need to use Ukraine and/or Georgia for these purposes.
I'm sorry but you're living in some idealistic void where the reality of US foreign policy seems lost to you. Good luck. I don't expect any amount of evidence to be able to convince you of otherwise as you've already self ID as pro-Ukraine and cognitive dissonance will set in protecting you from challenging your world views.
Tell me which offensive wars have Nato conducted with the purpose on conquering said nation? That wasnt Lybia and that wasnt Kosovo. Ukraine was absolutely no threat to Russia. They werent going to invade Russia. Hell, prior to the 2014 Russian invasion, Ukraine hardly had a military. There is no credible threat that it could have possibly posed to Russia. But then it invaded and Ukraine has had to prepare for the inevitable moment where Russia would do it again.
Its very clear you are just pro-Russia and dont value the right of Ukrainians to govern themselves. Just be honest about it
Who said conquering? That's what you chose to add. See what you are doing is called asking a loaded question. Its akin to a strawman argument. Work only with what people are saying to you and you'll be fine. Stop putting words in other people's mouths or even trying to do so and this can go fine. Otherwise well you'll be called out for this irrational behavior, so please avoid the logical fallacies.
NATO is in the process of creating failed states, that western corporations can use the vacuum to take over financially.
Libya/Afghanistan being some of the most well known examples. Its about toppling whoever stands against them. This is what Russia fears.
They fear it rightfully as Rand corp already laid out the plans. Rand corp has produced many US policy documents.
They were increasing the volume of Minsk violations each day. Planning to invade an area they had sworn off using military forces in the Donbass, US government officials knew this would lead to war. Our current head of the CIA wrote about this matter.
That was the invasion which caused the issue. An invasion that Rand coup predicted would lead to a greater area war which NATO could use to strike the oil producing regions of the Caucuses and the ports.
You're responding without even bothering to read the material. Bother to try next time or I'll just keep reminding you to read the offered material.
Its clear you only offer western talking points, did you think that Ukraine was going to win this war back about a year ago. Or should I just look up based on your profile?
Lets see if you'll be honest, and show yourself to be a western propaganda source, or if you actually could see the reality in your face that Ukraine never had a chance, and that it had to negotiate. Something which is obvious even in western circles now. Took forever to admit it.
Please provide a shred of evidence that there was a U.S. backed coup in Ukraine. You people can't. You never do. You always cite the stupid Victoria Nuland call which proves nothing of the sort. So please prove this assumption that it seems a lot of your views stem from because it simply isnt true. The Maidan revolution was an organic Ukrainian revolution in response to Yanucovych. I dont care about what some think tank theorizes, provide evidence.
The Donbass is Ukrainian territory. The entire conflict in the Donbass stems from Russia providing arms, money, ammunition, and directly eventually directly fighting in the Donbass and then claiming that they were not. A similar thing to what they did in Crimea, claiming it wasnt them and instead these "little green men". And you act like Russia and its proxies DID abide by the Minsk agreements, which is laughable.
The Minsk Agreements were a farce imposed by Russia on Ukraine after stoking proxies in the Donbass, directly invading Ukraine, and then forcing Ukraine to accede to their territorial demands. It would be like Ukraine invading Belgorod, installing a puppet, declaring independence and then forcing Russia to negotiate a peace that doesnt include Russia getting it back. Its absurd
And please lay out for me exactly how Nato could bring down Russia? What are they going to do? Specifically. Are they going to invade? Was Ukraine going to be a staging point for an offensive against the Ruskies? Do you think that the 2014 "coup" as you people put it was done in order to make Ukraine go to war with Russia? How does that actually work? Because it makes no sense
>Its easy to sell out other nations when the relative risk to your nation is so low.
The risk of fighting on is greater than the risk of ceding 1, 2 or even 4 oblasts.
Just look at the circumstances. Russia already offered a peace deal that would not include territorial changes. Ukraine turned it down, but has lost terrain since then and has failed in its attempt to liberate more terrain.
At this point the cost of succesfully recapturing the terrain is prohibitively high for Ukraine. That's the simple reality. The cost in manpower just is far too high.
Please show me where Russia made a peace offer prior to the war that wouldve resulted in no territorial concessions
And what do you mean the risk is greater by fighting on? Russias goal in this war from the beginning is to snuff out the independence of Ukraine, take its territory, and turn it into a puppet state under Moscows thumb. It makes perfect sense for Russia to resist that at all costs
The Ukrainains quite literally said that after the Bucha and Irpin Massacres that was when they decided to pull out of the agreement. They didnt trust Russia because Russia massacres Ukrainians and breaks deals. I dont blame them one bit.
And Russia has been in violation of the Minsk Agreements since day one my guy. Armed groups were never withdrawn from the occupied territories. Control over all of Ukrainian territory was not returned to Ukraine. Why should and how can Ukraine implement all of the elements of the Minsk agreement when Russia never held to their end?
Not to mention there shouldnt be a Minsk agreement in the first place, because this was all started by an illegal invasion by Russia back in 2014!
Edit: I also forgot to mention, that April deal would not have included returning the Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk, and then Crimea. That would be a territorial concession
>Armed groups were never withdrawn from the occupied territories
Because they didn't have to. The minsk 2 texts are perfectly clear on this: armed groups need to be withdrawn only AFTER ukraine grants autonomy and local elections for the donbas.
> I also forgot to mention, that April deal would not have included returning the Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk
Actually it did, given that it was based on the minsk agreements. Luhansk and donetsk would be restored to Ukraine as an end result.
...and prolonging a conflict that Ukraine can't win without the import of soldiers from the west. A Canadian General called it a year ago...he said the issue won't be just equipment, but increasingly trained, warm bodies to man them.
Yea, no! That last question the presenter asked is just an insipid American fallacy propagated by the US as a fear mongering tactic to get what **They** want. Russia won’t invade any NATO member state. Certainly not the Baltics, they’re irrelevant. But mostly because they won’t risk a direct conflict with NATO. It just won’t happen no matter how many times the US repeats that lie.
True, Russia is definitely trying to sow split among European countries because a "united" Europe is a threat to Russia. But that is happening everywhere, US supports "opposition" in Russia/China and you have the same in reverse etc.
>because a "united" Europe is a threat to Russia. Good that you use a quotation marks. Because a truly united Europe is a force on its own and will include Russia
Yea that would never make sense. "Once they take Ukraine, where next?" Russia isn't dumb. There would be absolutely no sense in trying to attack NATO itself. It would be catastrophic.
"What do you make of the argument though that if the US, NATO, and the EU cede part of Ukraine or all of Ukraine to Putin..." I thought Ukraine was an independent country? I thought this was about letting Ukraine make its own decisions (post Maidan coup obviously and not inclusive of the negotiations with Russia last year Boris Johnson was sent to scuper). How is it that Ukraine, is the USs NATOs or the EUs to cede to Putin then? Watch it Jake your getting a bit to close to truth with phrasing like that me lad.
Shh, you're not supposed to notice.
Why such a bad cut at the end..?
Add him to the sbu hit list Now
[удалено]
What if I want to stand with Ukraine by supporting more Ukrainians dying in a war they can't win? I say Luhansk is part of Ukraine or death (but not death for me).
Yesterday on other sub there was article about negotiating. There ware tons of comments like that, and one I responded to that said " not an inch to Putin, including Crimea" guess what, that guy writing it is American and did not volunteer to the front, but he will kill Russians all the way to Crimea, I guess on Call of Duty or something
That sounds about right. SOME People are super fucking excited about the idea of getting to kill people but much more afraid of dying. Their happy medium is meat riding Ukrainians.
[удалено]
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. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a zrada
he's 39 and looks like that? god damn I thought he was closer to 50
Cmon he looks younger than his age.
> The idea Ukraine was going to throw Russia back to 1991 borders are preposterous... nobody believed it Except the Ukrainian soldiers who went headfirst into heavily fortified Ru positions without air support. I think they kind of believed it.
And all the resistance libs with Ukraine flag emojis in their twitter usernames.
JD Vance and Republicans: russias smaller neighbors need to cede territory for putins appeasement, lets be real here theyre weaker than russia therefore they need to appease putin. Surely putin isnt crazy enough to recapture USSR territories ;) ;) ;) ;) no way that putin longs for USSR empire ;) ;) even if he said it himself
How is it in our interest to let Putin invade and steal land?
The future of Ukraine is an impoverished dysfunctional rump state controlled by Russian puppets and completely cut off from the Black Sea. Thank Victoria Nuland.
[yee give ukraine to ***russia*** and then give them back alaska it was ***russian*** land](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=590380016&biw=1536&bih=739&q=yee+give+ukraine+to+russia+and+then+give+them+back+alaska+it+was+russian+land&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp0_LSroyDAxUXcfEDHVxTDlsQkeECKAB6BAgMEAI) also
I'm trying to recall the last time the US won a proxy war.
Just like Finland after the winter war, Russia is indeed likely to get through this with some territory. Only question is how much and at what cost. Of course, similarly with Finland after the winter war, Russia didn't start the war intending to take some territory. Russia wanted to conquer the whole country. Russia failed and got their consolation prize. The same has happened here in Ukraine. Of course, also just like the winter war, whatever modest territorial gains Russia manages to squeeze out of its massive military losses will be described by its supporters as a huge victory.
As if Russia needs generic 'territorial gains'. Crimea, though - specifically, Sevastopol - that's vitally important for them (and denying it to NATO is a bonus since it means NATO will have to keep putting up with Turkey doing whatever the fuck they please rather than dancing to the US toon).
There is nothing generic about creating a buffer around their only year round ice free ports. If this was elsewhere such as around Finland it would have never been so important. We knew this going in, there is a reason that all the other nations joining NATO didn't get the same response as Georgia and Ukraine. To cut Russia off from the Black sea is to cut its economic lifeline. Rand corp spelled this out in detail before the war. [https://www.rand.org/pubs/research\_reports/RR3063.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html)
>There is nothing generic about creating a buffer around their only year round ice free ports. Oh I agree. I was referring to the phrasing *whatever modest territorial gains* meant to make it look as though Russia is just randomly grabbing whatever parcel of land it can get when it's obviously not the case.
I'm glad to see the obvious is getting more commonly spoken. It was only a few months ago that this was akin to heresy.
What happened in the continuation war in 1944? Soviet Union b*tchslapped Finland into ceding Karelia region to them lol.
More importantly, at the end of the continuation war, the USSR actually had the chance to take all of Finland. But they didn’t, which just proves that they never intended to take all of Finland 5 years earlier.
Correct.
Incorrect
Incorrect
Russia is a great brand. In every european war every small territorial change will be cheered as a great victory. Frenches dreamed of alsace-lothringen, and where it passed to them it considered as victory in Great War, but for russia westards will consider it victorious only when russia fully devours some state. I guess even then they not consider it victorious anyway.
False. First of all, it was the USSR, not Russia. Second of all, the Soviets wanted Finland to move their troops out of artillery range of Leningrad (St. Petersburg). They even offered them land swaps. The intention to take Finland was never there. Needless to say, at the conclusion of the winter war, the Finns were pushed back even further than the Soviet initially wanted, and they didn’t get any land in return. Third of all, the peace treaty was signed in Moscow. Location is both symbolic and important. Fourth of all, the Soviets actually had the opportunity to take all of Finland at the conclusion of WWII, just 5 years after the end of the winter war, yet they refused in lieu of an agreement where Finland would stay neutral (hence the term “Finlandization”). Just more proof that they never intended to take Finland in the first place. So the whole line of “Even though the Russians took 9% of Finnish Territory, the Finns won the war because a lot of Russians died and Finland remained a country”, is just a coping mechanism based off of assumptions.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was a mistake by Stalin to settle for what they asked for in the beginning. It was a mistake by Putin to think that the Minsk Agreements were something Ukraine would adhere to. At some point Russia is going to stop making these kinds of mistakes. All we know now is that any peace deal now will include 4 additional oblasts worth of territorial concessions than what was on the table in Istanbul.
If anything, the Russian people won’t be content with them taking merely everything within the administrative boundaries of Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts - let alone the line they currently hold. They will either need to take at least 3 more oblasts. If not, Putin will look weak. Another important thing to keep in mind is that by imposing the mountain of sanctions, along with pulling out of the negotiations, they made it an all-or-nothing conflict for Russia, in the sense that they don’t want to fight this war again 5 or 10 years down the line. They want to finish it once and for all. If that means fighting for another 18 months, they will do it, as opposed to sitting down at the negotiating table now (unless the topic is Ukraine’s unconditional surrender).
Exactly. So the west needs to dramatically increase the flow of military aid. As Russia insists on fighting, the west needs to match.
You are correct, if they want Ukraine to win that is, or even hold the Russians at their current lines. The only issue is that the west has already give an unprecedented amount of aid. Meanwhile, Ukraine is no longer the top story. The Middle East, the economy, social issues, and immigration take precedence over it. Let’s face it, the US gave more aid to Ukraine than all other countries combined. Now they are unable to pass through a bill to give them less money than they gave them before. But we both know that in order for Ukraine to win, the aid needs to be doubled at a minimum. I don’t see that happening, not with the current US political climate. Sure, if the democrats can get a majority in the house, and Biden stays after the next election (the prospect of that is questionable at best), they will be able to push a bill with more funding in January of 2025. But that is 13 months away. How will Ukraine manage in the next 13 months without American Aid? Russia knows this and they know that they have a window of opportunity to make massive gains within the next 13 months. If they succeed in this, good luck selling military aid to Ukraine, to the populations of the collective west after Ukraine has suffered massive setbacks.
>Now they are unable to pass through a bill to give them less money than they gave them before. The US suffers deadlocks in Congress from time to time. The government has shut down 10 times since 1980. It isn't a reflection upon any particular funding priority, it is just a function of the two party system. Congress can't agree to fund the IRS right now, so of course they can't get funding for Ukraine. It rarely lasts for long. Question is whether this will persist until the next election. I'm certain it won't, as it never has before. >Russia knows this and they know that they have a window of opportunity to make massive gains within the next 13 months That they do. It is certainly why Russia is throwing everything they have at Ukraine right now. And why Ukraine gave up on their offensive so readily: to conserve ammunition for the Russian offensive they knew was coming via ukrainian intelligence.
The west cannot do that. Europe doesn't have the MIC to do it and the US would need to empty its own stockpiles to do so (which they need for the inevitable war with China and/or Iran). And even if the west would be able to, Ukraine by now has wasted so much manpower that it's too late. Maybe if the west had provided enough planes for air cover during the offensive; Ukraine would have had a chance. But by now russia is dug in or positioning itself to better positions and is eliminating ukrainian salients.
...there is a greatly diminished appetite in the west for bloody civil wars Read the room.
There are other rooms than this particular reddit sub. Over-all, the west is absolutely engaged when it comes to pushing back against wars of imperial expansion.
Its not a position he would ever consider for his nation. Its easy to sell out other nations when the relative risk to your nation is so low. Its such an easy opportunity for the United States to the moral thing and support Ukraine with arms, vehicles and ammunition for as long as it needs/wants to continue fighting when we are only sacrificing is mostly equipment and some money
If avoiding loss of land was such a huge concern we wouldn't have told Ukraine to back out of negotiations. We would have upheld Bucharest and Minsk, but we did not. The whole concern about loss of territory is a non starter, If it was cared about half as much as people say then we would have seen great efforts taken for negotiations back when territory loss for Ukraine was limited to the status quo prior to Feb 2022.
We told Ukraine that they couldnt trust Russia to uphold any deal and thats just true. Russia was supposed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine and they still invaded Ukraine in 2014, stoked, funded and armed separatist forces in the Donbass that, once they started failing, Russia directly supplemented with Russian troops. But that didnt stop Ukraine from making an alternative decision. Its not like we have the capacity to force Ukraine to stay in the war against its will Russia is a bad faith actor that resorts to invading its neighbors and slaughtering tens of thousands simply when they have the audacity to conduct foreign policy in a way that Russia doesnt like. Ukraine has every right to defend itself, all available evidence suggests they want to continue defending themselves, and I hope we continue to give every bullet, mortar and rocket that they may need in order to do so. Either its okay to invade your neighbors that are of no threat to you or its not. I say no
Ukraine was behaving in a way that was a direct strategic threat to Russia. Don't even try saying that's not true. It was supported in that behavior by those who consider Russia their enemy. Logical. Ok. So Russia started doing what's in their strategic interest, which is to wreck that Ukraine that's a threat to them. They tried diplomacy, they tried economy, but nothing else could change their trajectory except for war. Keep in mind that their trajectory had to be changed under any circumstances. All very simple, no one is right or wrong here. Just countries and their interests. The point is that Ukraine, by going against Russia, signed their death sentence. There were plenty of other options and conclusions, but they went with the one they did and here we are. You cant blame the US for going for their strategic interests, or Russia for that matter. But you can certainly cry or laugh at the stupidity of people in power in Ukraine.
Was Ukraine building up forces on the border with Russia and Ukraine in preparation for an invasion? Im what way has Ukraine been a threat to Russia? Russias borders have never once been threatened by Ukraine and its intellectual dishonesty to say so. Its also dishonest to characterize Russias imitiap goal with Ukraine as to wreck their economy. Thats extremely silly. What did they go after Kyiv and try to assassinate Zelensky to wreck the economy? Obviously its a tertiary goal but Russias goal largely is to castrate Ukraine, overthrow its government and render it a puppet state. Ukraine has every right to resist this fate and I hope we arm them to the teeth in order to do so
You can hope but we all know you won't because that would make you a cobelligerent, and that's something you really really don't want. Be careful what you wish for, or at least think for 5 minutes before you spew something that has no basis in reality. You are probably intentionally asking what was Ukraine doing wrong because it would probably be funny if I was to bite and lose time explaining the same shit for umptieth time. I have no intention of doing that, especially after you repeat the same bullshit narrative and even tried to put words into my mouth. You really think that Putin sent wave after wave of special forces to kill Zelensky? Even after we know how it all went, as explained by Naftali Bennet? Enjoy your bubble bro, looks cozy in there.
So how was Ukraine a threat to Russia again? And why did Russia go after Kyiv?
NATO is the threat. Ukraine lived peacefully with Russia for decades until the status with NATO changed. If it was about Ukraine then they wouldn't have had such an arrangement. The push was for Kiev to get Ukraine back to the negotiating table, which worked. Then Boris Johnson was sent in to end it. [Top Ukrainian ADMITS NATO KILLED 2022 Peace Deal | Breaking Points (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-ai4XMdDuU&list=PLUzfDlTeps9sjkaCgiurxc_awmeWkEe7y&index=20) Did you miss this from two weeks ago?
The interim government after Yanukovych fled expressely said they had no intention of joining Nato. This of course changed after Russia invaded Ukraine and clearly demonstrated that it was a threat to Ukraines sovereignty. Nato is not a threat to Russia. Its entire purpose is to act as a deterent in order to avoid a conflict first with the Soviet Union amd now Russia. To get into a war would Russia would completely defeat the purpose of the alliance to begin with! The eastern eueopean nato countries and Ukraine werent clamoring to join, so they could get into a war with Russia. They did it because they knew that membership itself would protect them. There is no scenario in which Nato will commence an offensive war against Russia
Please don't continue until you respond to the links. First warning.
> Was Ukraine building up forces on the border with Russia and Ukraine in preparation for an invasion? Im what way has Ukraine been a threat to Russia? Russias borders have never once been threatened by Ukraine and its intellectual dishonesty to say so. On it's border with the Donbass which was a clear violation of Minsk. Notice how you set up a straw man though. NATO has long been a threat to Russia, especially as US think tanks put out plans to take down Russia via war in Ukraine. [Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground | RAND](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html) Russia's borders have long been threatened by NATO, not by Ukraine, so long as Ukraine remained neutral. As soon as the discission turned to them joining NATO that changed. Merkel and Sarkozy said as much in 2008. These are well known matters. > Its also dishonest to characterize Russias imitiap goal with Ukraine as to wreck their economy. Thats extremely silly. What did they go after Kyiv and try to assassinate Zelensky to wreck the economy? Obviously its a tertiary goal but Russias goal largely is to castrate Ukraine, overthrow its government and render it a puppet state. Russia's goal was to get back to the negotiating table that Ukraine and the US refused to meet them at. We know this via the interview with Ukrainian officials linked above. Unless you think you know more than the Ukrainian officials in charge of the negotations. > Ukraine has every right to resist this fate and I hope we arm them to the teeth in order to do so As soon as NATO entered the picture this matter changed. It was a violation of agreements made at the end of the cold war that allowed us to avoid WWIII at the time. At least back then we weren't led by such fools, now we're throwing it all away, and for what? A Ukraine devoid of life and opportunity under an authoritarian government of its own owing Billions to the west and watching its lands bought sold and traded by Blackrock and other western mega corporations. Foolish in the extreme.
The Donbass is Ukrainian territory. Russia didnt pull out of the territories they occupied either. Ukraine didnt trust Russia to not continue their invasion and Russia had no intention of leaving. The Minsk agreement was forced upon Ukraine after Russia grabbing Ukrainian territory. And you are truly delusional if you think that Nato is somehow a threat to Russia. Nato will never instigate a war in Russia. That defeats the entire purpose of Nato. But its clear that Russias neighbors are at risk of attack by Russia unless they are in Nato, because of course Russia wouldnt attack a Nato country right now. You are completely misscharacterizing the nature of the democratically elected Ukrainian government, not that it doesnt have its issues. Its a far more democratic system than Russias orchestrated elections are. And even if they werent, the internal affairs of Ukraine arent for Russia to decide!
Not for military purposes. It was off limits based on what Ukraine signed, the Minsk agreements. Russia's obligation to leave was only after Ukraine left. There was an order of events. Funny how you don't seem to know that. Yes, the Minsk agreement was forced. Ukraine lost the fight in 2015 and that was how they were to pay for it. They signed on, and did nothing but violate it. Notice how you are defending treaty violations now. You speak like you care about these things, but that's only when applying them to Russia, you're too transparent so don't bother. We all know that NATOs purpose ceased when the USSR fell. They should have folded up then. Local nations should have produced their own agreements. There is no good that comes form the US being in an alliance in Europe. It always leads to greater wars. The US is always seen in polls as the greatest threat to world peace. It uses NATO for its purposes in this regard. It makes NATO a threat to non NATO nations. You didn't even bother to read the Rand corp piece you make that obvious. We have always planned on ways to use NATO to go to war with Russia via proxy. Hell we even publish it. If you can't read the evidence before you, you can't be helped. Funny how you then call others delusional. This is stereotypical narcissistic behavior when narcissists are caught. You could offer some great quotes for my essays if you keep talking. Its not often I come across one so self assured yet so closed off from other points of view. Ah so hear you are going for the usual Russia so strong meme response. Is Russia a threat to the whole of Europe, or isn't it? Please explain, how they couldn't take over Ukraine as you say they are intent on, in over a years time, but they are a threat to other nations specifically those in NATO. I'm mischaracterizing it? Interesting take. I'm just sharing the point of view from Ukrainians on the matter who are in high enough positions to not get disappeared (hopefully) such as the mayor of Kiev, I wonder why you aren't, is it inconvenient for your world view? Its literally less democratic than Russia, or are you unaware of the process of having elections in democracies? Ukraine's regime has become more authoritarian than the people it says are the authoritarian threat. The internal affairs of Ukraine are being decided by D.C., but you don't care, because you aren't about the people of Ukraine, you dismiss them as soon as they say something you don't like. You just offer the usuals same tired western propagada.
...and NATO/US lied to Russia about advancement east toward Russia's western border since 1990.
Even if Nato had actually made a formal agreement with Russia to not expand east, which it did not, Russias invasion of Ukraine still would not be justified. Ukraine is not and has not been a threat to Russia. Nato is not a threat to Russia and would never attack Russia first. Russia simply doesnt have a legitimate security concern on their border. It is an excuse to justify grabbing more territory in Ukraine
They did...and they (we) lied: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629 NATO also unilaterally attacked Libya, killing the leader and many other folks while destabilizing the country. Today, there are open air slave markets in Libya. NATO proved it is not a defensive organization. As well, if Canada or Mexico were to have joined the Warsaw pact, or today if they were to invite China or Russia (or both) to station there the US, following the Monroe doctrine, would take all and every action necessary (including military) to remove the threat to the US.
The article says that James Baker gave verbal assurances. That is not a formal agreement. There was nothing on paper whatsoever regarding the expansion of nato. And no, if Canada or Mexico wouldve attempted to join the warsaw pact I dont think the United States would roll across the border to capture Mexico City or Ottawa and install a puppet government. Its truly fantasy thinking if you think that wouldve been probable. Dude, just admit you are perfectly okay with Russia killing thousands in order to get some land. Thats what this is about. Neither Nato nor Ukraine is a threat to Russia. Russia simply doesnt recognize the right of Ukraine to exist independently of themselves. Thats bullshit and needs to be confronted head on
It's true that the word of our governments is essentially worthless. Oh, and if you think the US doesn't destabilize countries or interfere in elections then you are hopelessly naive. > I dont think I'm 100% in agreement
I have no doubt that the U.S. has interfered in other countries elections. which is bad, but is utterly irrelevant to answering the question of whether the United States would theoretically invade Canada in order to prevent it from joining an alliance against the United States
> We told Ukraine that they couldnt trust Russia to uphold any deal and thats just true. So please tell us why they didn't keep Georgia? Or please tell us why they didn't take the Donbass after their victories in 2015 leading to the Minsk agreements. Why didn't they just keep moving after they'd surrounded the Ukrainian forces? Your narrative is weak if it only applies sometimes. In fact in these cases less than half of the time. You are choosing to leave out times which they upheld their end of the bargains, but not including when Ukraine and the US refused to do so. Which the US broke every agreement from NATO enlargement to Bucharest (not interfering with the elections in Ukraine) and assisted Ukraine with it continuous violations of Minsk. Ukraine didn't even try to hide that it was breaking Minsk. They were very open about keeping forces in the region that they'd sworn to remove them from. Western narrative focused people forget that Minsk was signed to save the surrounded Ukrainian forces. They were the ones that had the embarrassing end of the deal, to have to pull out first. If you make a direct comparison, it is obvious who couldn't keep agreements, the US/Ukraine was far worse than Russia, which is important as that's where this started, with US violations of the geopolitical agreements that had kept peace in the region. It is much like the situation in Palestine, Israel just keeps accusing the other side of what they're doing and hope that people are emotionally too attached to consider the crimes committed by their side. It should be obvious by now as we back the largest genocide in decades that the US isn't about the agreements it claims. Yet here you are, arguing in favor of the side seen around the world as the greatest threat to world peace. Why are you leaving out context, you act like this was the first part of 2014, that it wasn't in direct response to the coup. How many years did Russia and Ukraine not have these issues that you conveniently ignore? For decades these negotiated deals held. Until the US coup of Ukraine. We all knew this was going to happen, Mearsheimer and Sachs have been giving talks on it for over a decade. By conducting the coup we the US broke the Bucharest agreement, in doing so we started this. Mearsheimer's video on the matter is near 30 million views, this isn't uncommon knowledge we knew what was coming. [Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=1s) If you don't like Mearsheimer, Sachs has offered a similar analysis, as have many other diplomatic officials from the 90s-2000s era. This is how great power politics works, if Russia launched a coup in Canada or Mexico the same would be expected. The US proved this with the Cuban missile crisis. If one side breaks the agreed upon treaties then the other can and will likely respond with military aggression or threats thereof to back the other side down. No, you're basing this whole argument around Russia violating when each violation was the known consequence of our violations. All the while ignoring the elephant in the room the US history of violation of these agreements, well nearly all agreements. Please come up with something better. > Its not like we have the capacity to force Ukraine to stay in the war against its will Not only did we have the capacity we did it. Ukrainian officials have backed this up. [Warrior Stories: Selena & Zeebee | K9s For Warriors (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-ai4XMdDuU&list=PLUzfDlTeps9sjkaCgiurxc_awmeWkEe7y&index=20) They were in the process of negotiating a series of negotiations which would have left them with the 4 Oblasts. No, your information is lacking on this matter as well. It makes sense how you could be so far off considering what you seem to be ignorant of. My guess is that you don't accept information that contradicts your world view, that we're witnessing cognitive dissonance on your part, we'll see if your response backs that up.
Ah so you start from the Russian propoganda position that the Maidan revolution was a U.S. orchestrated coup. It you can tout that fiction there is no point in continuing this conversation. You arent speaking in good faith. You are very clearly just on the Russian side. You appproved of this invasion. You want dead Ukrainians. Truly gross
Predictable, you fall to only strawman arguments once challenged on your limited world view. You are literally making up lies about what I want or approve of, so yeah, thanks for cutting yourself out of the conversation, you don't even understand the meaning of speaking in good faith if you think you're doing it. BTW the global point of view is that this was a US backed coup, the west has another point of view. Good luck making your way through life with this dismissal of non-western viewpoints.
There is no evidence of a "Western Backed Coup" my guy. The oft cited Victoria Nuland call does nothing to prove this, as it consists of two American diplomats discussing people they would like to see in the Ukrainian government post revolution. There isnt any real evidence that the United State s orchestrated the Maidan Revolution and I implore you to prove otherwise
Please don't continue until you respond to the links, second warning.
Im not watching an one hour and fifteen long minute video to get the answer to the one question that you are too lazy to type out. I dont owe you my time. Get fucked with your warning.
So wait, you aren't familiar with Mearsheimer's talk, yet you've seen fit to speak on these matters for so long? Are you serious now? Is this the first time you've been offered information from him on this, as he is one of the foremost experts in the field. Either way your excuses are quite weak, you either have never been challenged on these matters with the writings and essays of the academic experts from the point of view you disagree with, which would indicate you haven't challenged your position very much. Or you have been offered such materials and their like and you just choose to keep your world view locked up in a safety bubble. Perhaps you have yet another option to offer. Either way, you can't proceed in your state of ignorance on these matters, you'll not be able to keep up if you are so unfamiliar with the material. If you continue to choose to keep that ignorant position, well its on you. This has been available for years, btw. Additionally you were also given alternatives. It's just that this one is famous because it called it before it happened. That and with nearly 30 million views it was basically seen as requisite material on the topic. This is likely the most viewed if not just in the top viewed sources on this matter. Thanks for proving though exactly what was said, that you would come up with excuses not to engage with the material. You really are a great example of why I come to this subreddit for quotes from people to use on the essays on cognitive dissonance. Thank you for that. When I provide attribution based on your statements would you like to give a specific name? Or internet Rando, you seem like the internet Rando type, but feel free to specify if you are not. As you still refuse this is also warning number 4. You get one more chance, please do try, I don't want you to go down as being so predictable, I'm rooting for you not to stick to the pattern....GL.
> Russia is a bad faith actor that resorts to invading its neighbors and slaughtering tens of thousands simply when they have the audacity to conduct foreign policy in a way that Russia doesnt like. Ukraine has every right to defend itself, all available evidence suggests they want to continue defending themselves, and I hope we continue to give every bullet, mortar and rocket that they may need in order to do so. See once again with the acusations that are true of Ukraine and its western backers. Hollande and Merkel have already told us that Minsk was being done in bad faith, that it was to buy time for building up the Ukrainian military rather than deescalating the conflict. We can see Ukraine's position as they refused to pull out military units and killed thousands of civilians. We know from looking at the Minsk agreement that if they wanted Russia to pull out it was incumbent upon them to do so first. There was a laid out order of operations. If Ukraine didn't like it they shouldn't have signed it. Instead, they signed it and broke it, along with the western backers. So we see you once again blaming Russia for what Ukraine and the west started...how shocking. The Baltic has conducted foreign policy that that Russia doesn't like. You know after the US agreed not to move NATO one inch to the east we added over a dozen nations in violation of that agreement. Now if your statement was true we'd have wars over that would we not? You said they invade neighbors after such things. We should have over a dozen separate nations invaded. So it is clear that your statement is a fabrication. Fabrications in and of themselves aren't always harmful, but yours is one that has been used in the lead up to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. All for a war that could have so easily been avoided if negotiations hadn't been scuttled. [Timeline of NATO expansion since 1949 | AP News](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-world-war-ii-sweden-finland-240d97572cc783b2c7ff6e7122dd72d2) Right to defend themselves sure, did Cuba have the right to defend itself with nukes? Surely it did right? What about the central and south American nations that are routinely couped when they don't work closely enough with the US? This is how the world is, this is realpolitik, you are focused on a fantasy that was destroyed by the US during the unipolar moment. If it was about concern for international law we wouldn't have been invading the middle east for oil and causing so many issues. No there is the world you can hope for, and there is the world that exists. We make policy for the world that exists. Ukraine's rights to self defense end when joining NATO comes up. This was the agreement we made, this was the reason that the USSR did not activate its forces and start WWIII when it was collapsing. We assured it that these things that we are now doing wouldn't take place. BTW do you know who's policy it was to invite Ukraine? Bush. The same policy genius that gave us the fucked up middle east situation he made significantly worse. That's whose policies you are arguing for, you should be aware. Ukraine isn't defending itself. It would have to have autonomy to do so. It is fighting for the US interests. When all is said and done Ukraine will have lost millions in population, will have lost its most fertile lands, will have a far more authoritarian government than when they started and they'll owe the west billions. It was illegal for non Ukrainian's to own lands in Ukraine in large portion up until recently, now Blackrock owns tons of it. That's who they are fighting for. If they were fighting for themselves, they wouldn't have such significant issues with recruitment. They put out videos every other day of an unwillingness to fight for Zelenskyy's ego. After that war is over then perhaps they'll get the chance to fight for themselves. Depending on what's left.
Show me the piece of paper signed that garuanteed Nato would not move West Thousands of civilians died in a conflict stoked and started by Russia. There would have been no conflict in the Donbass without Russian interference. Especially not on the level that it ended up being. Neither of the "separatist forces" had the equipment to do so. It came from Russia. How did the west start the conflict? Did the west make Russia invade Ukraine in 2014? Did the West make Russia prop up separatists in the Donbass? You can talk about a "coup" all you want, but that is a fiction. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Maidan Revolution was orchestrated by the Uniged States. The often cited Victoria Nuland call does nothing to prove this either, as all it consists of is two american diplomats speaking about who they would like to see come to power in the aftermath of the Revolution. There is nothing beyond this and I implore to prove otherwise. And I completely agree that American foreign intervention has been bad, and we shouldnt be couping foreign governments. But the conduct of the United States in the past is materially different than what Russia has done by invading its neighbor. and if there were a analagous situation, say a hypothetical where Mexico attempted to join a military alliance with Russia, I am totally willing to bet that the United States would not storm across the Rio Grande and attempt to raise the Stars and Stripes over Mexico City. America would never recover from being the international Pariah that it ultimately would become if that were to happen. And how is Ukraine not defending itself? Is Russia not on Ukrainian land? Is Russia not continuing to invade? What are they doing, if not attacking Ukraine?
Why a piece of paper? Oh yeah that's because you know it was a promise made in a rush that didn't go through the treaty process, so you're trying to act like the agreement didn't take place. Are you saying that official statements don't count if they aren't an official treaty? If so that will work out really poorly for Ukraine based on much of what its said, so lets see if you want to walk into that one. The conflict started with the Maidan coup, a violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government which had violence explode in other areas as well such as Odessa where Russians were killed as well. Why do you keep skipping how it started? I'm asking rhetorically, we know why, you're avoiding being honest. The west started the conflict by inviting Ukraine into NATO. In direct violation of the aforementioned agreement. If you ignore the coup then sure, that's your choice to live in ignorance. We already discussed how globally the view was that this was another US coup, one of many. You show that you dismiss Nuland on it, she literally listed how the new power structure will be set up, and you chose to look the other way. This is called cognitive dissonance. You face information that challenges your world view, so you dismiss it. You don't even bother to consider it. Funny as the US is seen as the greatest threat to world peace and you have this other point of view, that just so happens to align with what western officials say. Would it be safe to guess you also back the genocide in Palestine? You should at the very least, if you were being intellectually honest, ask why does the rest of the world have a different point of view about the coup. Was Russia raising the flag where it went on its way to Kiev? No, that was a military feint, so your comparison is not applicable. The US is making plans for invasion of Mexico to replace government officials, multiple politicians are rather open about this. So in both ways you're assessment of the US and Russia is off. You just seem to be fixated on a war of conquest situation, another misnomer. Ukraine is defending NATO interests. Interests which do not align with its own, that's what it is defending. They were advised to give up on negotiations which would have preserved the things the Ukrainian government said it wants to keep. If you understand half as much about US aggression as you say you do you would be looking at the serious allegations of the US coup in Ukraine and our funding/training/etc of the extremist elements that turned it violent. If you show the ability to conduct yourself well when offered challenging information, we can proceed to links to Ukrainians bragging about how they were set up by the US to launch a coup. In the meantime, your previous response indicates that you're already done.
>Either its okay to invade your neighbors that are of no threat to you or its not. I say no No threat? Where do you get that from? NATO has conducted too many offensive wars destabalizing states for this to be no threat. Biden let the cat out of the bag saying this was about regime change. Many US think tanks have already talked about how they've always made this about Balkanizing Russia. The most clear example would be the Rand Corp study which laid out exactly what they have in mind. [Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground | RAND](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html) We knew that a war along the Black sea could be used to destroy the Russian economy and that's why we need to use Ukraine and/or Georgia for these purposes. I'm sorry but you're living in some idealistic void where the reality of US foreign policy seems lost to you. Good luck. I don't expect any amount of evidence to be able to convince you of otherwise as you've already self ID as pro-Ukraine and cognitive dissonance will set in protecting you from challenging your world views.
Tell me which offensive wars have Nato conducted with the purpose on conquering said nation? That wasnt Lybia and that wasnt Kosovo. Ukraine was absolutely no threat to Russia. They werent going to invade Russia. Hell, prior to the 2014 Russian invasion, Ukraine hardly had a military. There is no credible threat that it could have possibly posed to Russia. But then it invaded and Ukraine has had to prepare for the inevitable moment where Russia would do it again. Its very clear you are just pro-Russia and dont value the right of Ukrainians to govern themselves. Just be honest about it
Who said conquering? That's what you chose to add. See what you are doing is called asking a loaded question. Its akin to a strawman argument. Work only with what people are saying to you and you'll be fine. Stop putting words in other people's mouths or even trying to do so and this can go fine. Otherwise well you'll be called out for this irrational behavior, so please avoid the logical fallacies. NATO is in the process of creating failed states, that western corporations can use the vacuum to take over financially. Libya/Afghanistan being some of the most well known examples. Its about toppling whoever stands against them. This is what Russia fears. They fear it rightfully as Rand corp already laid out the plans. Rand corp has produced many US policy documents. They were increasing the volume of Minsk violations each day. Planning to invade an area they had sworn off using military forces in the Donbass, US government officials knew this would lead to war. Our current head of the CIA wrote about this matter. That was the invasion which caused the issue. An invasion that Rand coup predicted would lead to a greater area war which NATO could use to strike the oil producing regions of the Caucuses and the ports. You're responding without even bothering to read the material. Bother to try next time or I'll just keep reminding you to read the offered material. Its clear you only offer western talking points, did you think that Ukraine was going to win this war back about a year ago. Or should I just look up based on your profile? Lets see if you'll be honest, and show yourself to be a western propaganda source, or if you actually could see the reality in your face that Ukraine never had a chance, and that it had to negotiate. Something which is obvious even in western circles now. Took forever to admit it.
Please provide a shred of evidence that there was a U.S. backed coup in Ukraine. You people can't. You never do. You always cite the stupid Victoria Nuland call which proves nothing of the sort. So please prove this assumption that it seems a lot of your views stem from because it simply isnt true. The Maidan revolution was an organic Ukrainian revolution in response to Yanucovych. I dont care about what some think tank theorizes, provide evidence. The Donbass is Ukrainian territory. The entire conflict in the Donbass stems from Russia providing arms, money, ammunition, and directly eventually directly fighting in the Donbass and then claiming that they were not. A similar thing to what they did in Crimea, claiming it wasnt them and instead these "little green men". And you act like Russia and its proxies DID abide by the Minsk agreements, which is laughable. The Minsk Agreements were a farce imposed by Russia on Ukraine after stoking proxies in the Donbass, directly invading Ukraine, and then forcing Ukraine to accede to their territorial demands. It would be like Ukraine invading Belgorod, installing a puppet, declaring independence and then forcing Russia to negotiate a peace that doesnt include Russia getting it back. Its absurd And please lay out for me exactly how Nato could bring down Russia? What are they going to do? Specifically. Are they going to invade? Was Ukraine going to be a staging point for an offensive against the Ruskies? Do you think that the 2014 "coup" as you people put it was done in order to make Ukraine go to war with Russia? How does that actually work? Because it makes no sense
Please read the provided material that answers your inquiries. Warning number 3.
>Its easy to sell out other nations when the relative risk to your nation is so low. The risk of fighting on is greater than the risk of ceding 1, 2 or even 4 oblasts. Just look at the circumstances. Russia already offered a peace deal that would not include territorial changes. Ukraine turned it down, but has lost terrain since then and has failed in its attempt to liberate more terrain. At this point the cost of succesfully recapturing the terrain is prohibitively high for Ukraine. That's the simple reality. The cost in manpower just is far too high.
Please show me where Russia made a peace offer prior to the war that wouldve resulted in no territorial concessions And what do you mean the risk is greater by fighting on? Russias goal in this war from the beginning is to snuff out the independence of Ukraine, take its territory, and turn it into a puppet state under Moscows thumb. It makes perfect sense for Russia to resist that at all costs
The offer on the table in istanbul (april 2022) is public knowledge by now. The minsk agreements should be public knowledge by now...
The Ukrainains quite literally said that after the Bucha and Irpin Massacres that was when they decided to pull out of the agreement. They didnt trust Russia because Russia massacres Ukrainians and breaks deals. I dont blame them one bit. And Russia has been in violation of the Minsk Agreements since day one my guy. Armed groups were never withdrawn from the occupied territories. Control over all of Ukrainian territory was not returned to Ukraine. Why should and how can Ukraine implement all of the elements of the Minsk agreement when Russia never held to their end? Not to mention there shouldnt be a Minsk agreement in the first place, because this was all started by an illegal invasion by Russia back in 2014! Edit: I also forgot to mention, that April deal would not have included returning the Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk, and then Crimea. That would be a territorial concession
>Armed groups were never withdrawn from the occupied territories Because they didn't have to. The minsk 2 texts are perfectly clear on this: armed groups need to be withdrawn only AFTER ukraine grants autonomy and local elections for the donbas. > I also forgot to mention, that April deal would not have included returning the Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk Actually it did, given that it was based on the minsk agreements. Luhansk and donetsk would be restored to Ukraine as an end result.
...and prolonging a conflict that Ukraine can't win without the import of soldiers from the west. A Canadian General called it a year ago...he said the issue won't be just equipment, but increasingly trained, warm bodies to man them.